4. But above all, the dying spirit passes immediately into the presence of Christ the Saviour.
It is most important for us to observe this, for there can be no real joy to the Christian if he be separate from Christ. The pure river of the fountain of life would lose all its charm if it did not proceed out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. The sea of glass, clear as crystal, would have no beauty if the face of Jesus were not reflected in it. The new Jerusalem itself would be no object of desire, though its walls be of jasper, its gate of pearl, its streets of gold, if Christ himself were not the light of it: for the brightest diamond has no brightness in the dark. Yea, heaven itself would become a hell if the Son of God were not the reigning Lord of it.
If we cannot prove, therefore, that the departed believer passes at once into the presence of his Lord, we in fact prove nothing. If for one moment we are to be separated from him, it little matters where. But thanks be to God we can prove it without the possibility of contradiction.
When Stephen died[41a]“he saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God;” saw, as it were, the arm of Christ reaching forth to draw him up to heaven; so he fell down and prayed “Lord Jesus receive my spirit.”
When St. Paul doubted between life and death, he[41b]“had a desire to depart and be with Christ, which was far better.” Death then was a departure into the immediate presence of his Lord. But above all refer to 2 Cor. v. 6, 7, 8. “Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilstwe are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord; (for we walk by faith not by sight;) we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” The idea of this passage is that there are two homes for believers; two dwellings, one on earth, and one in heaven; one in the body, one in the presence of our Lord. While here we know him, but it is by faith alone. “We walk by faith, not by sight.” When there we shall see him in the full brilliancy of his love and glory. And this change is immediate. The veil is very thin that separates the world of flesh from the world of spirits. Every prayer of faith pierces it. The stream is very narrow that separates earth and heaven, and no sooner do we quit the one than we enter on the other; no sooner is the earthly home dissolved, than Christ himself is seen and the heavenly home opens for his people. So long as “we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord;” and we are willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. The departed believer, therefore, is at once found with Christ.
5. But there is another passage in which all these immediate blessings appear summed up in one short, but most expressive, word. “To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”[42]
We should have no fear in resting the question upon this text alone. It places the truth beyond the reach of all attack. “To die is gain,” therefore to die is not to go to purgatory. “To dieis gain,” therefore to die is not to be tortured in fire for the expiation of our sin. Nor must we suppose that this refers to St. Paul alone. His acceptance rested on the same terms as ours. He was a sinner pardoned through the Lamb’s blood, and accepted on the same terms as the weakest believer in our congregation. To die was gain; not because he was an Apostle, but because to live was Christ. And if to us to live is Christ, then to us to die is gain.
Look then at the present happiness of believers, the present joy of the new born child of God. He does not see Christ, it is true, with the eye of sense; but he knows him, he loves him, he delights in him, he speaks to him, his soul is filled with joy at the assurance of his grace. “Whom having not seen we love, in whom though now ye see him not, yet believing ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory.” In every care and trial he can find a sweet repose, for he knows that Christ is near, and he has the precious promise “The beloved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by him; and the Lord shall cover him all the day long.” So when his frame becomes enfeebled and the time of his departure seems at hand, he can lie down peacefully upon the bed of languishing, for he has the precious promise that the Lord shall strengthen him; the sweet assurance “Thouwilt makeallhis bed in his sickness.” Ay! and when the illness itself draws to a close, when all power to alleviate is gone, when the physician’s skill is helpless, and the wife’s affection fruitless; when the dying man is passingalone through the valley of the shadow of death, he is still supported, still happy, still at peace. For the same Lord is nigh. “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil: for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.” Oh! Blessed life! Oh! happy death of the child of God! “Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his!”[44]
But now suppose the valley crossed. The arm has upheld him through the struggle; the beloved of the Lord has been borne safely through. Is the first sight which meets his affrighted eye the lurid glare of the flashing flames of purgatorial fire?—the first sound that startles his ear the groaning of God’s beloved children writhing under the torments of expiating torture? Is that calm repose on Jesus suddenly changed by one terrific plunge into the scorching agony of a purgatorial flame? Would it be gain thus to die? Would such a death be “far better” than the life of faith? It would be better surely to dwell safely as the beloved of the Lord, than to burn miserably in the expiation of unforgiven sin.
We may conclude then that the doctrine of purgatory is in direct opposition to the word of God, but we have a yet farther, and, if possible, graver charge to urge against it, viz.,
III. That it is in direct opposition to the doctrine of atonement as set forth in scripture.
You will remember the extract already quoted from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, inwhich it was stated that in the fire of purgatory the souls of the pious make expiation for their sin. Pause for a moment to observe these words. There are two things to be noticed in them, (1.) they assert directly that man’s sufferings can make expiation for his sin, and (2.) they imply that the death of our Lord was not a complete expiation for our sin. Let us examine each part separately.
(1.) First then we have a direct assertion that by enduring pain the believer makes expiation for his soul; that is, that our temporary sufferings satisfy God’s broken law.
If this be true, what occasion was there for the blood of Jesus. Why the stupendous mystery of man’s redemption? Why the agony in the garden? Why the burden of the cross? Why the hiding of God’s countenance? Why the endurance of the curse in our stead? Such a work was surely needless, a mere mistake on the part of Jesus. The atonement is become a fable, if man’s passing pain can make expiation for his sin.
But, again, if pain is expiation, how is it that hell-fire burns for ever? Was ever suffering so intense as that? Was there ever such a scene of woe and misery, of hatefulness and hopelessness, as that? But does it make expiation for the sinner’s sin? Does it blot out the curse? Does the fire burn out its fuel? “It is the worm that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched.” Yea, verily, if the curse of one single sin could be burned out by ten thousand centuries of pain, hell would be nolonger hell, for there would be a faint gleam of far distant hope, shining even upon the miseries of the damned.
There is no expiation then in pain. Believers are chastened, but chastening is not atonement. It is God’s gentle discipline by which he prepares his jewels for his crown; and just as the finest gold is wrought most carefully, so the most precious of God’s children are often chastened most heavily, for “whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” There must be a melting of the gold, before it can be separated from the ore; there must be a rending of the root, before the tree can be taken from the wilderness and transplanted into the garden of the Lord. And so it is with believers. There must be a melting of the heart, a humbling of the earthly will, a weaning of soul, that they may cleave to Christ alone. And this is the purpose for which, beloved, we are chastened. He does it for our profit, that we may be partakers of his holiness. Affliction has the same effect that Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace had on the three children in captivity. It could not touch their person, but it burnt the bands that bound them, and enabled them to walk more freely with their Lord. But expiation! That is Christ’s work. “He is the propitiation for our sins,” and if suffering in man could expiate for sin in man, then the suffering of Christ were a waste of blood, a waste of agony, a waste of life, a waste of love.
(2.) And this leads us to our second remark, that the doctrine of expiation through purgatorialfire implies an incompleteness in the atonement of our blessed Lord. If expiation be still needful, then in his atonement there must be something wanting. Nor is this the mere conclusion of a bigoted protestant, it is the bold assertion of the Church of Rome herself. Listen to her canon, “If any man shall say that after the gift of Justification has been received, sin is so remitted to any repentant sinner,” (observe it speaks of justified believers and true penitents) “and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out, that there remains no debt of temporary punishment to be endured either in this world or the world to come in purgatory, before a way can be opened into the kingdom of heaven, let him be Anathema.”[47]
I feel utterly at a loss in attempting to speak on such an awful passage. Can they rememberthat they are speaking of the atonement wrought by the Son of God? He gave his own most precious life to satisfy the law, and can any portion of the debt remain? He purchased us with the price of his own most precious blood: is farther payment needed? The eternal Redeemer was our ransom: are we not free? The well beloved of the Father endured the curse as our substitute: was his work so ineffectual that the curse still hangs over the very men he came to save? Awful dishonour to the Son of God! Now Rome thou must indeed be Antichrist, for thou dost rob Christ of his glory; thou strivest to tarnish the beauty of his diadem. He says “Behold the Lamb of God that takest away the sins of the world.” But thou contradictest Christ and sayest that there is a remnant left to be punished in the believer still. He says “I, even I, am he, that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.” But thou sayest that the blot is not effaced, that the sin is still remembered, still punished, even in the child of God. He says “I am the way,” “I am the door; by me if any man enter in he shall be saved.” But thou sayest that the door cannot be opened, except it be through purgatorial pain. He says that he has loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and made us kings and priests unto God and the Father. But thou sayest the washing was incomplete, for sin must after all be burned out by fire; that love is still defective, for the saints must yet be punished; the inheritance not fully purchased, for, after all that Christ hasdone, the justified believer has still to make an expiation for his sin.[49]
No! beloved! we will not for a moment admit the thought of any other expiation, than that wrought out for us by the Lamb of God. And as for our dear departed brethren, nothing thatRome can say shall ever rob us of our delightful hope. They have felt no pain since the day we parted; their sainted spirits have been basking in the sunshine of the countenance of God. I myself have parted with a mother, such a mother that I often wonder if the world can ever more behold her equal: so strong in faith; so ardent in her thirsting after God; so pure in spirit; so sensitive to sin; so beaming in her holy loveliness, that you might almost believe you saw the Father’s name written legibly by the Holy Ghost upon her forehead. To this day do I hear the tones of her dying voice, when in answer to my questions respecting her soul’s peace, she replied “I can reverently say with the deepest humility, ‘Lord, thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee.’” And I would rather have this arm torn from its socket, I would rather be scorched and scathed in Moloch’s fire, than I would abandon my firm and fixed persuasion that such love has never been interrupted, that her Redeeming Lord has never left her for a moment; my perfect assurance, that while we were weeping in solemn stillness around her bed of death, she was taking her place amongst the company of palm bearers, and is now standing before the throne, having washed her robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
So also for ourselves! dear brethren! for we too must die; our day is hastening on, our time drawing to its close. A few short years and multitudes amongst us must change their faith for sight, the world of flesh for the world of spirits: a few, short, rapid years, and every one,both you and I, shall find ourselves in heaven or in hell. But let us fear nothing. Only let us be found in Christ, justified through his blood, with our name written in his book of life, and the Father’s name engraven by the Holy Ghost on our forehead, and then neither death or hell can ever prevail to hurt us. In Christ we are safe; washed in his blood we are completely pardoned; clad in his righteousness we are completely justified; and kept in his right hand we are completely and for ever safe.
Only let us be found in Christ. Then the outward man may decay; the poor frame may wax faint and feeble; the eye may become dim, even with the dim fixedness of death: and then, when all earthly power has sunk under exhaustion, the eye will open; a new world will spring up before us; attendant angels will hover around the new-born citizen of heaven; and without tears, or fears, or weakness, we shall behold Christ in the brightness of his glory, and cry aloud in the heartfelt thankfulness of unutterable joy, “Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb.”
Hebrewsx. 12.But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.
Hebrewsx. 12.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.
Therewas never a more tremendous judgment than that uttered by the voice of Malachi,[52]“I will curse your blessings.” There can be no scourge more heavy than a blessing cursed. The more choice the gift, the more fatal is the misuse of it; the richer the blessing, the deadlier its corruption. So it was with Christ himself. He was the most precious gift that could be found even in the treasuries of heaven—the well beloved Son of God; but to those who rejected him he became a stone of stumbling and rock of offence. So it has been with that sacred feast, which he left as a parting legacy to his church. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is one of the richest blessings in the church’s birthright. It is a sacred opportunity of feeding in faith upon the body and blood of the Lamb, a perpetual remembrance of his boundless grace, a bond of holyfellowship with our brethren in the faith, a sacred pledge of our union and communion with the Lord. Yet even this has been corrupted. As with the Jews of old, so with professing Christians “their table has become a snare before them, and that which should have been for their welfare has become a trap.”[53a]We allude, of course, to the doctrine of transubstantiation, of which the Council of Trent decrees as follows:
“By the consecration of the bread and wine there is effected a change in the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood.”[53b]Here we have the bread and wine transformed into the actual substance of the person of our blessed Lord: so transformed that according to the Catechism[53c]there are “bones and nerves in it.” Nay, more! so changed that there is actually his whole person, not excepting his soul and his divinity, for the Council declares[53d]“If any man shall say that the body and blood of the Lord JesusChrist, together with his soul and divinity, and, in short, that a whole Christ, is not contained truly, really, and substantially in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, but shall say that he is in it only in sign, or figure, or power, let him be anathema.”
There is no misunderstanding such words as these. And if there were, the 6th canon shows how Rome herself interprets them, for she not only acknowledges the fact, but follows it consistently to its conclusion, and declares plainly that we are to worship it with the worship due to God.[54]
“If any shall say that in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored, and that outwardly with the worship of Latria (the worship paid to God), and that he ought not to be . . . carried solemnly about in processions, or that he ought not to be set before the people that he may be worshipped, and that the worshippers of him are idolaters, let him be anathema.”
But even this is not all: for not merely do they claim the power of thus making the bread intothe very person of the only begotten of the Father, they add yet this also, that they can put that Saviour to death, and by that sacrifice make a propitiation for the sins of the dead and living. The Council of Trent declares[55a]“In the sacrifice of the mass, that same Christ is sacrificed without blood who once with blood offered himself upon the cross.” And in Canon iii.[55b]it adds that “If any man shall say that the sacrifice is not propitiatory and profits the receiver only, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfaction, and other necessities, let him be anathema.”
Such is the doctrine of transubstantiation as taught by the Church of Rome. According to it by a few words of consecration a wafer of unleavened bread is transformed into the very person of the Son of God: a man may be worshipping with divine honour in the afternoon a morsel of that same wheaten flour on which he made his breakfast in the morning: the one half he may bake for the sustenance of his children, the other he may be bound to adore when the priest has transubstantiated it into God. On reading such a doctrine it is impossible altogether to forget God’s cutting language against the sin of Israel.
“He burneth part of it in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha! I am warm, I have seen the fire: and the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, deliver me for thou art my god.”[56]
Surely, then, it is reasonable to ask that the truth of such a principle should be tried by the word of God alone. It is opposed to the evidence of our senses, it is opposed to reason, and it is no less opposed to the general tenor of the sacred scriptures. It is a case, therefore, in which no human evidence can avail any thing; the best, the wisest, the holiest of men, are wholly insufficient witnesses to prove, that what is apparently a piece of bread, lifeless, motionless, and powerless, is the very person of Christ himself, the only begotten of the Father, reigning triumphantly at the right hand of the throne of God. Such a fact, if it be a fact, must be taught by God himself.
At the same time, if God has said it we are bound cheerfully to believe it. It is condemned by every faculty which God has given us; it is opposed to experience, and to every pre-existent principle of religion, yet so complete should be our submission to the Bible, so absolute and unquestioning our conviction of its certain truth, that if we clearly find even transubstantiation there, we must believe without a murmur, we must abandon all human thoughts in submission to his all perfectwisdom. Yea though our revered church declares it plainly both “a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit;”[57]though the martyred fathers of the Reformation chose rather to die in agony than admit its truth; yet if God says it we will joyfully believe it, “for God is in heaven and we upon earth, therefore must our words be few.”
By the word of God, then, let us proceed to try the question, and we will examine the language of Scripture,
I. With reference to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper;
II. With reference to the life and work of our blessed Lord.
May the Holy Ghost lead us calmly, seriously, and dispassionately to learn the truths of his own most holy word!
I. The language of Scripture with reference to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
The doctrine is supposed to rest upon the words of our blessed Saviour, “This is my body,” or as they were revealed to St. Paul, “This is my body which is broken for you.”
This sentence is thought to contain a plain, literal, absolute, assertion that the bread was changed into his body; changed so completely that while the Saviour spoke the words, that bread which he held within his hand, was his real, natural, whole, and substantial person. The belief of the Church of England is that the words have no such literal meaning; but were employed to teach that the bread and wine were signs, figures, or emblems of his body broken, and hisblood shed upon the cross.[58a]He says, “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” “I am the door:” but none suppose that he was a real vine, a real door, or his people real branches of a growing tree. St. Paul says “That rock was Christ:” but none believe that the flinty rock was in very fact a living man.[58b]In all these passages we never doubt for a single moment what was the meaning of the Holy Ghost. The vine and the rock represented Christ, and the door was a figure of him. Just so we believe it to be with the words of consecration; the bread was a figure of his body and the wine of his blood.
That this is the true meaning of the passage seems to lie upon its very surface. Let us turn to 1st Corinthians xi. We shall there find that
1st. It is inconsistent to take the words literally; for they are quite as explicit and literal when spoken of the wine as of the bread. “This is my body which is broken for you.” “This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” But in this one passage there are no less than three figures. The cup stands as the emblem or figure of the wine contained in it; the new covenant is said to be the New Testamentinhis blood, because it was sealed and ratified by his blood; and thecup itself is declared positively to be the testament. This must be figurative, it must mean that the cup is a sign, emblem, or figure of the testament. Thus the warmest advocate of the doctrine of transubstantiation is compelled to allow the use of figure with reference to the cup. Is it consistent? is it defensible or any principle of scriptural interpretation to deny it with reference to the bread? ought they not to be interpreted on the same principles? Here are two sentences, spoken at the same time, by the same person, under the same circumstances, to the same company, and for the same purpose. But there must be a figure in the one, who shall deny it in the other? The cup must be an emblem of the testament, can we be wrong in believing also that the bread is an emblem of the body?
2d. But this is not all. We have besides the direct testimony of the Holy Ghost that the bread remains bread, and the wine remains wine after consecration. Of the wine our Lord spoke in terms which it is quite impossible to mistake or misinterpret. In Matthew xxvi. 29, he expressly says, “I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” These words were spokenafterthe consecration, and they seem uttered with especial caution as if he had foreseen the error which was about to creep into his professing church. He does not rest content with the name of “wine,” but calls it “fruit of the vine,” as if to prove beyond the possibility of a doubt that it had gained no new substance, but remained as it was before, thenatural produce of the vine, the simple unaltered juice of the grape. Nor is the evidence less positive with reference to the bread. Again and again do we read of the breaking of the bread, never once of the sacrifice of the body. Nor is this merely accidental, for in the 10th and 11th chapters of 1st Corinthians we have the bread called bread by the Holy Ghost, no less than four times after consecration. In 1 Cor. x. 17, the Christian communicant is said to partake of bread, not of flesh with bones and nerves; “We are all partakers of that onebread.” In 1 Cor. xi. 26, “For as often as ye eat thisbread, and drink thiscup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” In 27, “Whosoever shall eat thisbread, and drink thiscupof the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord;” and 28, “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of thatbread, and drink of thatcup.” We do not, therefore, rest on human reason only when we deny the doctrine of transubstantiation. We boldly cast ourselves upon the teaching of the Bible, yea, upon the teaching of the Son of God himself, and believe the bread to be still bread, and the wine to remain as the fruit of the vine. We behold in them the signs and symbols of the passion of our Lord; and beholding the sign, we feed in faith on the reality. They are the figures of himself; the representations of his passion; the emblems and signs of his atoning death. As such we value, we receive, we honour them: but we live on Christ himself; we rest on the passion itself, on the atonement itself; and so by a strong, spiritual, realizing faith weare made partakers of his flesh and blood. “The words that I speak unto you they are spirit, and they are life.”
3rd. But if the words were to be taken literally, they would not even then furnish the slightest proof of the doctrine taught by Rome: for you will remember the canon[61]already quoted, which says, “If any man shall say that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and in short that a whole Christ is not contained in the Sacrament, let him be accursed.” The utmost that the words of Jesus can be understood as teaching is, that the bread is transubstantiated into the body. The narrative is given by three Evangelists and one Apostle; but in no single instance is there the least mention made of his soul or spirit. He did not say, “This is my body, soul, and divinity.” He said simply, “This is my body.” They refer to it exclusively, and this exclusiveness is marked in them with a peculiar and distinctive point. If he had simply said, “This is my body,” it might have been possible for a lively imagination to clothe them with some reference to all the properties of his sacred person; but by adding the words “Which is broken for you,” he has givena definite fixedness to their meaning; he has tied them down to a distinct and exclusive application; he has showed that they refer simply and solely to the real, human body; to that flesh through which the nails were driven, to that human frame which was seen hanging on the cross, which was embalmed by the women, and which lay buried in the tomb of Joseph.
There is not, therefore, the faintest appearance of the least shade of scriptural evidence, in support of the canon that the bread is changed into the soul and divinity of our Lord. It is an addition made by the church of Rome on her own simple, unsupported, authority.[62]There is not one single passage, which, on any principle of interpretation, can be forced or twisted into the most distant reference to such a change. The Saviour said “This is my body.” Rome adds, “it is his soul and divinity.” And what an addition have we here! The soul shudders at the thought that men dare presume to make it! Had we the tongue of angels we should utterly fail to describe the unutterable glory of the majesty of God. As well might the insect swallow up the ocean as any finite creature exhibit truly the unbounded vastness of an infinite Jehovah. In Majesty incomprehensible he dwelleth in the light which no man can approach unto: in power omnipotent he created all things without one single atom of material substance: in life eternal he dweltalone from the beginning, filling with his own self the vast regions of unbounded space; and now that he has peopled a universe with the countless creatures of his skill, he is present everywhere, exhausted no where. “Do not I the Lord fill earth and heaven?” Yet does Rome venture on the unsupported authority of man to ascribe all this to the unleavened wafer, and fearlessly to hurl her curses against those who tremble at the thought of kneeling down to the bread and wine, and adoring them with the worship which belongs to the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. “If any man shall say that, he (i.e. the transubstantiated wafer) is not to be adored with the worship due to God, let him be accursed.”[63]
II. We may pass then to our second point, and compare the doctrine of transubstantiation with the teaching of Scripture concerning both the life and work of Jesus.
And first we may remark that, according to the Bible, he now lives and reigns in his complete and perfect manhood. This appears very plainly in the language of our text. “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.” The same that made the offering is now seated at the righthand of God. Yes! that same human person that was born of the Virgin, that grew in stature, that was wearied at the well, that slept in the ship, that thirsted on the cross, that was laid in the new tomb of Joseph; that same person is the triumphant King seated as a conqueror on the throne of God. “I am he that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore, Amen, and have the keys of hell and death.”[64a]
And this explains the language of Scripture, which describes him in one defined and determined place, seated at the right hand of God. In his divine nature he is God himself, and fills earth and heaven. To the Son may we say as to the Father, “If I ascend up into heaven thou art there; if I make my bed in hell thou art there.” But in his human nature he is perfect man, and as man limited. As Jehovah he is omnipotent and created all things, but yet as man he was dependent, and prayed for strength; so as Jehovah, he is omnipresent, watching everywhere over the most hidden of his scattered children, as man he has his one abiding place, and is seated at the right hand of God. He was always omnipresent, but when he went to Bethany he left Jerusalem. So too he is as God now omnipresent everywhere, but when he went to the Father, as man he left the presence of the church below. “It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart I will send him unto you.”[64b]
Hence it is that he speaks of his ascension as aleaving of the world; in the body he went to God, though in divine power he never left his church on earth. Hence his second advent is described as a coming back to his people; “This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”[65a]Hence, also, we are expressly taught that until the appointed day shall dawn his habitation will be heaven, and his seat the throne of God.[65b]“Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things.”
We dare not, therefore, admit the thought that before his advent his human person can be present with his church on earth. The language of sacred scripture is plain and oft repeated, that he has left the world, and is not to be seen in person here; it leaves no space for doubt or imagination, but teaches the believer to look on his risen Saviour in one place and one alone; “in heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us.” There he sits in triumphant peace, having fought the fight, having won the victory, having gained the crown. Thousand thousand saints attend him, ten thousand times ten thousand bow before him, and not a murmur, not a whisper, ever breaks for a moment the cheerful peace of his dominion. Nothing there prevails to ruffle the calm surface of that sea of glass, which, clear as crystal, reflects the countenance of its reigning Lord. And though the troubled passions of this lower world may be lashed into fury by the action of universal sin;though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof, it cannot disturb the lowest pediment of his footstool; for “The Lord sitteth above the water-flood, the Lord sitteth king for ever.” And yet shall Rome tell us that we are to adore in that piece of bread the very person of our reigning Lord? that the wafer which can neither save itself from the insect, from the reptile, or from putrefaction; and which, to protect it, the Priest must shut carefully in the casket, is in very truth the reigning Jesus, with all his life and all his attributes? We might believe them possibly if they were to tell us that they had plucked up Vesuvius by the roots, and cast the huge mountain like a pebble into the deep. We might perhaps listen to the tale, if the priest were to tell us that he was about to stretch forth his bold hand, and tear down the sun from its high place amongst the stars of heaven; but we will never believe that any man, or set of men, on earth, can hold within their hand, can shut within their casket, can carry in their procession, or can kill at their pleasure, that living, reigning Saviour, whom the Holy Ghost declares to be seated triumphantly on the right hand of God.
(2) But the worst yet remains. Christ passed to glory through the grave; his kingdom was bought by blood. “After he had made one offering for sin, he for ever sat down at the right hand of God.” See how that one offering is affected by the doctrine of the mass. You will remember the canon already quoted which declared that when the mass was offered, a propitiatorysacrifice was made for the sins both of the dead and of the living. Now what does that imply? Nothing short of this, that the atonement made by Christ was neither complete, nor final: not complete, else where the need of further sacrifice? not final, else where the possibility of a repetition? But if there be any one point on which the Holy Ghost has spoken more explicitly than another, that one point is the final sufficiency of the work of Jesus.
It was complete.
By his one oblation of himself once offered, he made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. He paid the whole price, he bore the whole curse. He left no room for further payment, for any sacrifice in application of the one offering to the sinner’s case. That one atonement itself reached to the lowest depths of the sinner’s fall; it broke down every barrier between the soul and God; it so completely blotted out the curse that the Gospel message is, “Believe and live.” “By one offering he hath perfected for them that are sanctified,” v. 14. When Christ died the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; not half-way only. The way into the holiest was then laid completely open. There was no second rending needed; no drawing aside the curtain. There stood the mercy seat in full view of the adoring multitude. So it is with “the new and living way which Christ has consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.” It lays the way of life completely open to the sinner; and we only honour God, when we believe, to our inexpressible joy, thata poor, guilty, broken-hearted penitent, may, without money, without price, and without sacrifice, enter in boldly, and through the simple look of faith find life and peace to his soul. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”
It was final.
The passage from which our text is taken seems written with prophetic reference to this very subject. It could not have spoken with more plainness if we Protestants had composed it for ourselves. No less than five times in these few verses does the Holy Ghost declare that the propitiation made by Christ was offered once, and once alone.
IX. 26. “But nowoncein the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
IX. 28. “So Christ wasonceoffered to bear the sins of many.”
X. 10. “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christonce for all.”
X. 12. “But this man, after he had offeredonesacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.”
X. 14. “For byoneoffering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
If there were any possibility of mistaking these plain and oft repeated words, even that would be removed by the slightest glance at the pointed argument in which we find them. The Apostle is drawing a contrast between the gospel and the law; between the priesthood of Christ and thatof the sons of Levi. Now mark the especial point of contrast; their sacrifices being imperfect require frequent repetition, his being perfect was made once, and for ever, upon the cross.
IX. 25 and 26. “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the High Priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” The whole argument turns upon the impossibility of repetition in the sacrifice of our Lord. If that can be repeated the whole contrast falls to the ground.
There is, therefore, the most complete, clear, and explicit proof that Christ could be no more offered, and that propitiation could be no more made for sin. Yea, verily, so complete is that perfect work already finished by Christ as our substitute; so perfect is that satisfaction which he made upon the cross for the sins of man, that if the whole of that sad scene were once more enacted upon Calvary; if the crown of thorns were once more placed on his head; if his holy frame were once more broken and bowed down by death; neither his agony nor death could avail one jot, or one tittle, to the blotting out of one single sinner’s sin. Who can whiten that which is already white as snow? What can cleanse the garment that is already washed in the Lamb’s most precious blood? Who can take away the curse which is already blotted out for ever? What new atonement, what second sacrifice, whatfresh victim, can avail anything to the perfect acceptance of that believer’s soul who is already made the righteousness of God in Christ?
No more then of the awful thought that, that piece of bread is the very person of our reigning Lord! No more of the tremendous principle that there can be a second sacrifice of the sacred life of Jesus; a second propitiation for the sins which the Son of God has borne! We will adore our blessed Saviour himself, as he is now seated at the right hand of God. We will adore him as our Advocate, adore him as our king, adore him as our accepted substitute. We will trust him for his grace, we will praise him for his glory; we will believe in the perfection of his perfect and all sufficient-work. He has taken the burden of every sin for which conscience ever can condemn us. He has endured the curse of every transgression of which Satan ever can accuse us. He has washed unto spotless whiteness the most sin-stained garment of his most sin-polluted child. So scorning the thought of any second sacrifice, we will go direct to Christ himself; and there in faith lie waiting before his footstool, feeding on his grace, rejoicing in his love, triumphing in his power, till he come again in glory and welcome to his kingdom the whole multitude of his ransomed saints. Even so, come Lord Jesus!! Come quickly.
2Tim. iii. 1.This know also that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Tim. iii. 1.
This know also that in the last days perilous times shall come.
Itis nearly 1800 years since our blessed Lord declared to his Apostle, “Behold I come quickly.” It, therefore, well becomes his children to be watching the signs of his appearing, and to be studying with intense interest the records which he has given for the guidance and warning of his people. It is not presumption, but sober faith, thus to inquire into God’s prophetic word. The Book of Revelations was written[71a]“to show unto God’s servants things which must shortly come to pass;” and our Lord himself has directed us to observe the appointed signs, to compare and check them with advancing history, and when we shall see all these things come to pass, to know that the day is near, even at the doors.[71b]
We purpose, then, to close our present courseby carefully examining into God’s description of the state of the church in the latter days.
We sometimes hear the expression of sanguine and happy hopes that the Gospel will so prevail throughout the world as to leave no place either for heresy in religion, or for viciousness in life; that there will arrive a time before the coming of our blessed Lord, when men will witness the fulfilment of the prophecy “that righteousness shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.” Yet the smallest glance at the prophetic Scriptures is sufficient to show that there is no warrant for such bright anticipations there. Again and again does God declares that the days immediately proceeding Christ’s coming shall be days of especial darkness both to the world and to the church. “Upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them for fear; and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.”[72]
With this description the language of our text is in close and complete accordance. “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.”
Let us, then, endeavour to profit by the word of warning, and examine
I. The perils of the latter days;
II. The character and security of the saints of God.
I. The perils of the latter days.
(1.) There will be perils from the world without. We have already learned from the language of our blessed Lord that there will be “distress of nations with perplexity, men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth.” We are told in St. Mark[73]that there shall be “wars and rumours of wars,” that “nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be earthquakes in divers places; and there shall be famines and troubles; these are the beginning of sorrows.” It is of course impossible but that the people of God should be deeply affected by this awful convulsion of the moral atmosphere of the world. When there is a universal earthquake in society, all must feel the shock; when the storm bursts around us, all must be more or less affected by the crash.
(2.) We must, therefore, reckon this coming convulsion of society as one of the leading causes of the peculiar perils of the latter days. But there are plain intimations in the Word of God that the chief source of peril is to be found within the visible church itself. An enemy within the citadel is always more dangerous than an enemy without; and such an enemy is plainly predicted in the Bible. Our text describes not the opposition of infidelity, but the corruption of Christianity; and draws our thoughts not to the conflicting powers of the world, but to the degenerate principles of the church. “For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters,proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitorous, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” There is nothing here of wars or rumours of wars, of the array of earthly monarchs against the cross; the danger here predicted is found within the body of professors, and consists in a wide spread, deep-rooted apostacy from the faith. Nor does this apostacy lead to the open and avowed rejection of the Gospel. Would that it did! The apostate body retains its visible profession, and parades its high-sounding name of Christianity, for (verse 5) it has “a form of godliness,” while it denies its power. Though ignorant of the truth, these false professors do not professedly reject it, for they are “ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.” Thus are they reprobate concerning the faith. To be reprobate implies appearance, pretension, profession. Tin is not reprobate unless it be passed as silver, nor the infidel reprobate unless he assume the name of Christianity. The reprobate persons, therefore, described in our text must retain their place amongst professors, they must have the form of godliness, the bright appearance of some precious metal, yet when tested and tried by the Word of God, must be found to be a base coinage, reprobate concerning the faith.
From these remarks it must be plain to all that the peculiar peril of the latter day consists in thecorruption of Christianity by a body of men who all the while retain its form; of men who, with a high-sounding profession, resist the truth as it is in Jesus. The same appears with no less distinctness in 1 Tim. iv. 1–3, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” There can be no doubt that in both passages the Holy Spirit is warning us of the same danger; for in both the leading features are the same. The evil springs up not without the church to resist, but within the church to corrupt it. The deadly plant has its root in the garden of the Lord. “Some shalldepartfrom the faith.” There is no rejection of the visible profession of the Gospel, for the description given applies not to infidelity but to degeneracy; it is a departure from the faith, not from the name of Christianity. “Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats.” So the influence exerted is on Christian brethren, for they seek to bind the yoke around the neck of those which “believe and know the truth.”
These two passages are enough to show that the apostacy of professors, and not the assault of infidels, is the great source of peril in the latter days. But there is one further passage which wecannot pass unnoticed, namely, 2 Thess. ii. 3–11.[76a]In verse 3 we are plainly told that before the day of Christ shall come there must be a falling away, a revealing of the man of sin, the son of perdition. “Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” The connexion of the passage with those just considered appears more distinctly in the Greek than in the English, where the sentence stands. “Except there comethe[76b]falling away,” the expression “the” connecting it plainly with the other prophecies of the Bible, and the general expectation of the Church. The connexion also with thelatter days of the world’s history is proved distinctly by the fact that the man of sin is to be destroyed by the brightness of our Lord’s return, “whom the Lord shall consume with the Spirit of his mouth and destroy with the brightness of his coming.” We may, therefore, regard this chapter as giving an account of the same apostacy as that alluded to in the other texts. And now mark its character. It springs up in the church itself. Apostacy means departure or decline, and therefore, as we remarked in the text from Timothy, it is not an infidel power rising up against us to attack, but a degenerate power growing up in the midst of us to corrupt. As it springs up within the church so does it retain its place there. “It sits in the temple of God.” The church of God is often spoken of as a temple, as in 1 Cor. iii. 16, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God?”[77]And to sit in the temple of God implies that it occupies the seat, retains the name, and assumes the sanctity of the church of God. So again the words, “Sheweth himself that he is God,” point not to the infidel but to the professor, to one usurping, not attacking the sovereignty of Jehovah. The man of sin does not deny God’s existence, but usurps God’s authority. But when thus seated in the temple of God he is guilty of most awful sin. He sets himself above God; he displays himself as though he were God; he “shows himself that he is God;” he assumes God’s attributes; he lays claim to the powers and even titles of Jehovah. The elements of this apostacywere at work even in the days of the apostle. The seed was even then sown, the deadly leaven was already fermenting in the church. “The mystery of iniquity doth already work.” The time, however, was not yet come for the revealing or manifestation of his character and power. There was a certain restraining force which then kept him in. But this force was not to last for ever, for he “that letteth should be taken away, and then should that wicked be revealed.” This restraining force has always been explained as that of the Roman empire. The early church never questioned it, and it is a fact stated on good authority, and worthy of the deepest consideration, that the primitive Christians used to pray in their public worship for the preservation of the empire of pagan Rome, because they were persuaded from this prophecy, that when it fell the man of sin should be established on its ruins. But there is one other feature in this man of sin to be most carefully noted by the church. It does not refer to any single individual, but to a long series of apostate professors. It has been thought by some that the man of sin will be some single individual; one glance, however, at the passage will suffice to show that it must refer to a long series of successors. The whole period between the date of the epistle and the final coming of our blessed Lord is divided in the prophecy between “him that letteth”[78]and “theman of sin.” He that letteth then existed, and would continue till the man of sin took his place. The man of sin again would retain his place till the Lord Jesus appeared in glory. The two together, therefore, occupy a period of almost 1800 years. They cannot, therefore, both be individuals. One at least must represent a series of successors. But the two expressions are equally personal. “He that letteth” (ὁ κατέχων) is a form of expression quite as personal as “the man of sin.” It would be inconsistent therefore to say that one represents a series, and the other an individual. They must be both successions or both individuals. The latter supposition we have already shown to be impossible, the former we firmly believe to be the truth.
The apostacy, therefore, is not a sudden and passing outbreak of corruption just in advance of the advent of our Lord, but a deep-rooted, long-existing, departure from the faith, handed down from age to age, and spreading its baneful influence from the breaking up of the Roman empireto its final destruction at the coming of the Lord in glory. Now it is plain that the existence of such a body must render the latter days indeed perilous to the saints of God. It possesses every influence of every worldly kind; the influence of secular power, rising up as the successor to the empire of Rome; the authority of ecclesiastical position, sitting in the temple of God; the cunning of deep seductiveness, being itself the mystery of iniquity; the association of long-continued influence, spreading on from century to century; with the direct support of Satan himself, “for his coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.”[80]Such is the apostacy against which the saints of God are called to take their stand, and with reference to which it is predicted by the Spirit that “in the last days perilous times shall come.”
But where are we to look for this apostacy? It is described in prophecy: can it be traced in history? It is predicted in the word: can it be found in fact? Is the man of sin yet seated in the temple of God? I should not be a faithful servant of my God, if I did not express my deep conviction that this most perilous apostacy is the Papal system of the Church of Rome. For mark the close correspondence between the words of the prophecy, and the facts of history. The man of sin, according to the prophecy, was to spring up in the bosom of the church itself. Who shall deny that this is the case with the Romish popedom?The man of sin was to sit in the temple of God. The Pope of Rome declares himself that he sits as Christ’s vicar in the chair of Peter, and sways the sceptre of universal dominion in the church. The man of sin represents a long succession, maintaining the same principles, and heading the same apostacy from the truth: the exact counterpart of the popes of Rome.
The history of the man of sin is marked by three important dates. His principles were working secretly in the days of the apostles. He would be revealed or made manifest at the breaking up of the Roman empire. He would be destroyed at the coming of our blessed Lord. The two first of these dates exactly tally with the history of the Romish popedom. From many passages in the Epistles it may be gathered that its principles were working secretly when the apostles wrote them.[81]As the empire declined the Bishop of Rome rose in power, till at length, when the Emperor was taken out of the way, the Bishop stepped into his place, asserted himself to beChrist’s vicar, and pronounced himself Lord of all the authorities of the known world. The words therefore can allude to no later heresy at some future time to arise within the church, for the mystery was already working, and the public development was to take place when the Roman empire was destroyed. Of course the third date cannot yet be tried by history. It may serve, however, to fix the prophecy on the Church of Rome, for it proves that it can refer to none of the early heresies in the church; they have long since vanished, and cannot be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s appearing. The history of the Church of Rome then exactly tallies with the prophecy, andnothing else can. But what shall we say of the awful assumption predicted of the man of sin? Can that be charged on the Romish popedom? It saith, “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped.” With sorrow of heart we are compelled to acknowledge that we fear it is one of the marked features of his character. See how he has dared to tamper with the commands of God himself. I have myself seen a catechism, in which the second commandment is actually struck out of the decalogue of God. Why is it, again, that none of the laity in the Church of Rome receive the cup in the Sacrament of the Lord’s supper? Our Lord himself plainly commanded it. He even made the command more expressive for the cup than for the bread, saying, “Drink yeallof this;” yet Rome says to all her laity, “Drink ye none of this.” What is this but to exalt himselfabove the Saviour, and with a bold hand to set aside the plain command of God himself? And look again at the doctrine of transubstantiation. You will remember the passages quoted last Sunday from the Councils. They taught that the priest could make[83]Christ the Son of God, could shut him in a casket, could carry him in a procession, could sacrifice him for sin. What is this but to exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped? But the prophecy adds, “Sitteth in the temple of God shewing himself that he is God.” This may refer to the assumption either of God’s attributes or titles. The claim of infallibility, universal dominion, and the power of absolute forgiveness is nothing less than a usurpation of the attributes of God. But he has dared also to assume the titles, yea the very title of God himself. When the Lateran Council was held at Rome, and Pope Leo sat enthroned in the Lateran church, which claimed to be the mother church of universal Christendom, when he thus sat in the temple of God surrounded by its assembled representatives, the public orator, Marcellus, had the daring boldness to give utterance to the words, “Thou art our shepherd, ourphysician, in short, a second God in the world.”[84]“Sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” Did ever portrait more completely represent the person?
We conclude then that the Church of Rome is the great apostacy, the peculiar danger which makes the latter days so pre-eminently perilous. But we have not yet done with the consideration of their danger, for we are taught,
(3) That there will be a peculiar power of seduction immediately preceding the advent of our Lord. All the prophecies to which we have to-day alluded agree in showing that the great apostacy would be marked throughout its course by a mysterious power of seducing souls. But there are plain intimations in the word of God, that this power will be put forth in the latter days with an energy both multiplied and quickened. Nor is this a point of trivial importance;for you often hear it urged that we are too enlightened in this nineteenth century to be again ensnared by the superstitious principles of Rome. The rapid progress of scientific knowledge is thought a sufficient antidote against the seductions of those who would pervert the truth. Now such opinions will not stand for a moment the test of Scripture; for the Holy Ghost declares expressly that at the very time when science shall have reached its height, and when human intelligence shall have gained the very climax of its perfection, (I mean at the time just preceding the advent of our Lord,) that at that very crisis there shall be an unparalleled spirit of delusion in vigorous activity throughout the Church. Our Lord himself has prepared us for such a fact.[85]“For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect.” And the Spirit of God has expressly revealed it in Rev. xvi. 13–15. “And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs, come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth, and the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Behold I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments lest he walk naked, and they see hisshame.” I cannot now attempt a comment on these remarkable words, but only just observe two things respecting them.
(1) They allude to a period closely preceding the winding up of the world’s history: there are seven vials, and these spirits appear under the sixth; when the seventh is poured out, the words are uttered, “It is done.”[86a]
(2) They represent this period as a time of peculiar delusion throughout the world. The other vials all speak of war, suffering, and bloodshed: under the sixth there is a hush, like the hush of peace; its leading feature is delusion; delusion varied in all its forms, for there are three spirits; devilish in its origin, for they are the spirits of devils; prevailing in its influence, for it will throw its seductive power over the rulers of the world, and so sway the minds of states, that they will be, as it were, spell-bound, and lend their influence to the direct support of the antagonist of God. “They go forth to the kings of the earth, and of the whole world, and gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.”[86b]I am not now intending to occupy your time by comparing this prophecy with history; my object is to bring home to each of you the fact, the one simple and most startling fact, that a spirit of strong delusion willpeculiarly mark the latter days. The church is not to sit still in calm security, as though her warfare were accomplished, and her crown won at the Reformation. The great struggle is to be at last, the unclean spirits are to come forth at last; the sifting and searching days are to be at last. The nearer we approach to the advent, the greater the need of watchfulness; the farther the world advances, the more cautious heed should we pay to the warning voice of our Saviour; “Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.”
There is, therefore, abundant reason to believe that in the last days perilous times shall occur, it behoves us then to look most carefully into the second division of our subject.
II. The character and security of the people of God.
Nor is it enough for us to rest in any general description, as for example, in the fact that they are called, sealed, written in the book of life; we want such a description of their character as shall place them in contrast with the apostacy of the age in which they live. Such a description we may reasonably look for in the book of Revelation. The fullest account is there given of the apostacy; so there we should look for the clearest description of the contrasted saints. Now there is one sentence in that sacred book, which may supply us with the exact description we require, and which appears to point to two leading signs as distinguishing the character of the saints of God, viz. their submission to theword of God, and their simple faith in Christ himself. I allude to the language of the Holy Ghost in Rev. xiv. 12. “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.”
Nor is this a single, solitary passage. It seems to form as it were the motto of the whole book of the Apocalypse.
“Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Rev. i. 2.
“I, John, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Rev. i. 9.
“I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held.” Rev. vi. 9.
“And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony.” Rev. xii. 12.
“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Rev. xii. 17.
“And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God.” Rev. xx. 4.
In these words we have the saints of God again and again placed in direct contrast with the apostacy; we may therefore boldly refer to them as marking distinctly their character.
(1) What then is this character? They are witnesses.
They are not carried away by the prevailingapostacy of the times, but are witnesses against surrounding error. The expression “witness” implies that they stand aloof as a protesting body. The witness for God is not one who floats down the broad tide of popular opinion, but who stands up in opposition to it, and boldly proclaims the truth of God. Athanasius was a witness for Christ, when he stood forth with all the world against him, and himself alone contending against the world. Our Saviour was a witness to the truth, when before Pontius Pilate he witnessed a good confession, and was bold to endure the cross in order to fulfil the Father’s will. Thus the Greek word for “witnesses” is the same as that for “martyrs,”[89a]and the witness for Christ must be one raising the voice of protest, and contending against opposition for the truth once delivered to the Saints.
But for what are they witnesses? “For Jesus and the word of God.”[89b]
These two subjects form the great matter of their protest. “They keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” They are not occupied by secondary matters, nor debating on ecclesiastical distinctions. Such questions would not justify their separation. The word of God and the Son of God are the grand points for which they struggle.