时间：<2020-05-25 18:16:05 作者：QR真实的鬼故事FUS 浏览量：9777
The sense of reverence may take a wrong as well as a right direction. It led John himself to worship an angel, and to bring on himself the severe reproof which he has so faithfully recorded, and it may lead misguided men to give that which is not God the worship due to God alone. But while we think this, let none fall short in the deepest reverence. None can adore Him enough; none can be holy enough in His presence and at His feet. But it p. 17is the living Saviour at the right hand of God whom we will adore. It is the Prince on the throne, the Priest at the right hand of the Father. It is the living, reigning, triumphant Saviour, “far above all principalities and powers, and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come;” and not a small piece of lifeless bread, which is said to have been turned into God by the miraculous powers of a priest.
2. The bread is called bread, and the wine wine, after consecration, both by our Lord Himself and His Apostles.
Now, such a doctrine seems to me so utterly contrary to all that we are taught in the Scriptures respecting the perfection and consequent oneness of the one offering of our Blessed Lord upon the Cross, that I am utterly unable to comprehend how any person who takes the Scriptures as their authority can, by any process of mind, be brought to believe it. As I have already said, these chapters seem to have been written with a prophetic reference to it; and I do not hesitate to express my firm and fixed conviction, that if we mean to abide by God’s word as our guide, we must protest against the whole movement. Nor must we allow ourselves to be led away by the religious feelings of pious and earnest men; or permit the holy reverence with which, as believing communicants, p. 30we regard the holy communion of the body and blood of Christ, to induce us to think lightly of a deadly error, even though men make use of it in order, apparently, to exalt the peculiar sanctity of the sacrament. We must stand firm to the great principle of Scripture; the principle for which our martyred Reformers did not hesitate to shed their life-blood, that the bread is bread, and the wine wine, after consecration, just as they were before it; that neither the one nor the other is changed into the Lord Jesus Christ; that the Lord Jesus Christ is not sacrificed in the sacrament; and that there never can be, so long as the world lasts, any further sacrifice for sin. When the Lord Jesus Christ died on the cross, to use the language of our Church, He “made there (by His one oblation of Himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world:” and, unless we are prepared to deny the sufficiency of the one complete atonement, we must set our face with a holy determination against all ideas of repetition, or perpetuation, of any propitiatory sacrifice for sin.
p. 21With all this the Apostle contrasts the one perfect sacrifice of our blessed Lord, made on the cross once and for ever. There are no less than six places in which he brings out this one point, and brings it out with such clearness that it really seems as if the whole passage was written as a prophetic safeguard against the doctrine of the mass. In Heb. ix. 25, 26, he says: “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.” So in vv. 27, 28, he draws a comparison between the death of the Lord Jesus and the natural death of man, and says: “As it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” So that it would be just as absurd to expect men to die twice, as to believe that there can be any second offering of the Lord Jesus Christ for sin. The one death throughout mankind is the type or pattern of the one Sacrifice once p. 22made for sin. So, again, in x. 10, we read,—“By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” And again, in vv, 11, 12, St. Paul returns to the contrast between our Lord and the Jewish priest, and says, “Every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” And once more, in ver. 14, he sums up all by saying, “By one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” It would be a matter of deep interest to study carefully the meaning of the word “perfected” in this most important text. It does not mean perfect in personal holiness, i.e. in the inward work of the Spirit on the soul; but perfect in justification: perfect, because the curse was perfectly blotted out, the law being perfectly satisfied, and the sinner, after propitiation, perfectly free. But we must not stop to dwell on that now, our one point at present is that the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was once, and for ever; and this is most remarkably brought out in the words,—“By one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”It follows, therefore, that the subject of the ministry is one respecting which it is of great importance that our views should be scriptural. And yet, for obvious reasons, it is one seldom preached upon. The great object of the servant of the Lord is to throw Self out of sight; and it is so hard to disconnect the office from the office p. 48bearer, that too little is often said about the office from the fear that too much attention should be drawn to the man. It will be well, therefore, for us to take the subject of the ministry for our careful study this morning. And may God enable me so to speak, and you so to hear, that we may all receive God’s word in faith, and may, together, be compacted as a holy people in the Lord!
We live in very anxious times. Different phases of error are following each other with great rapidity, like waves before the gale on a stormy sea. A very short time ago we were deeply distressed by the sceptical tendencies of certain able writers,—tendencies still in rapid progress, though public attention has been recently directed into another channel. Now we are startled by the open declaration of Romish doctrine, and open practice of Romish ceremonial, by men who have accepted office in a church which declares these very doctrines to be “blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” It has become, therefore, absolutely necessary that we p. 4should understand the reasons why the Church of England has separated from that of Rome, and why it is that we raise our voice against these innovations. I am well aware that such a subject is distasteful to many minds. Some shrink from the trouble of controversy, and would rather have their whole attention fixed on that which they find helpful to their own souls. Others think it uncharitable; and maintain that, provided a person be conscientious in his practice, we need feel no anxiety about the truth or error of his creed. But I am persuaded that it will not do so to deal with truth. These are days in which we must know what we believe, and why we believe it. If we desire to stand fast, we must know our standing-ground. And if we desire to see our young people growing up as witnesses for the Lord Jesus Christ, we must not merely strive to call forth in them a religion of feeling, but must train them in sound Scriptural principles, that they may be able to give an answer to every one who asketh them a reason of the hope that is in them. The Romish question is forced upon us by the enormous efforts which the Church of Rome is making for the recovery of its ancient supremacy in England; and I must say, and say it with the p. 5deepest grief and humiliation, I fear we have been betrayed, in many cases, by men who, as clergymen of the Church of England, have pledged themselves to the very principles they are betraying. It is high time, therefore, that we should understand the ground of our solemn protest against Rome, and that we should not merely study truth in its simplicity, but study it likewise in its opposition to Romish error. I purpose, however, God helping me, to direct your thoughts this morning to one point of the controversy. I cannot attempt the many points on which we are at issue. I confine myself, therefore, to one; and that is, the teaching of the word of God with reference to our exalted Saviour, in opposition to the teaching of Rome in the doctrine of transubstantiation. May the Lord direct our studies, and write His own truth most deeply on our hearts!I. What, then, is the nature of the sacrifice? or, What is it we are to offer? It is not a lamb, or a goat, or a bullock, but, according to the language of our Communion Service, the offering which we are to render is ourselves. “Here we offer and present unto thee ourselves, our souls and bodies.” Just so we read of the p. 35churches of Macedonia, “that they first gave their own selves unto the Lord.” A moment’s thought will suffice to show that such a sacrifice as this is much more costly than any other. It would be a light matter to sacrifice a bullock, but it is a very costly one to sacrifice Self—an easy thing for the wealthy prince to bring a thousand lambs to the altar, but a hard thing for either rich or poor to bring his own will to be crucified with Christ.
Again: it is not the office of the minister to forgive sins. If our Lord, in His words of John xx. 23, had really connected such a power with the ministry of reconciliation, it is most extraordinary that in all the many portions of the New Testament which relate to the ministry there is no allusion to it. There are three whole Epistles directed exclusively to the chief pastors of the Church, besides several addresses to presbyters both in the Acts and Epistles; and is it not a most remarkable fact, that there is not a single allusion in any one of these passages or epistles to the forgiveness of sins, as forming a portion of the ministry of reconciliation? There are full directions respecting preaching, praying, reproving, instructing, and behaviour to all the different classes of the flock, but of forgiveness of sin by the minister, not one word can you find anywhere; and yet forgiveness itself is the great subject of the p. 58whole New Testament. But it is always traced at once, without any intermediate mediation, to the Lord Himself. It is always ascribed to His blood, His redemption, and His grace, and is never once connected in any way with any power of forgiveness bestowed by a priest. I am not now dwelling on any one particular passage, but rather on the omission of the whole subject from the word of God; and I cannot but think that that omission is a proof, beyond contradiction, that the Apostles, writing by inspiration, did not understand our Lord as teaching in these words that the forgiveness of sin by a priest formed any part of the ministry of reconciliation.3. That this sacrifice is a sacrifice of propitiation for sin. There is a sacrifice of self-dedication, which every loving heart is required to offer: as in the words after the Lord’s Supper,—“Here we offer and present unto Thee ourselves, out souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto Thee.” But in that case the offering is ourselves, and the motive is not propitiation, but dedication. According to the teaching of Rome the offering is the Lord Jesus Christ, and the object is to make a propitiation for sin.
It is scarcely needful to point out the unceasing repetition of the Jewish sacrifices. Not only were they offered on the occasion of every special fault, but every period of time was marked by them. The day, the week, the month, the year—each had its appointed sacrifice. Not a day, nor even a night, passed without sin, and therefore there was a sacrifice each morning for the sins of the night, and another each evening for those of the day. (Exod. xxix. 38-40.) Not a week passed without adding its quota to the accumulating guilt of the sinner, and, therefore, notwithstanding the daily sacrifices, there was another burnt-offering in the morning of every p. 20sabbath. (Num. xxviii. 9, 10.) But, notwithstanding all this, sin, and the guilt of it, still gathered around the people, so that at the beginning of each month there was, in addition, a monthly burnt-offering unto the Lord: “the burnt-offering of every month through the months of the year.” (Ibid. 11, 14.) But sin gathered still. Lamb after lamb was brought to the altar, but it seemed as though nothing could satisfy: for every year, on the tenth day of the seventh month, there was the great day of atonement for sin; and of the solemn sacrifices of that great day it was said, “This shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a-year.” (Lev. xvi. 34.) Thus, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, there was an unceasing system of perpetual sacrifice. There was no end to the unceasing shedding of blood. Sometimes the victim was a bullock, sometimes a ram, sometimes a goat, sometimes a lamb, and sometimes a pair of turtle-doves. But there was always a sacrifice. There were two every day, and sometimes many more, besides those which were offered for special sins.THE MASS.Then, again, with the place there has been a complete change in His employment. He was here to found His kingdom and to make atonement. He is there to carry out the results of that atonement and to reign. His office was represented by the high priest of old, who first in the outer court offered the sacrifice, and p. 7afterwards went in before the mercy-seat to sprinkle the blood. So Christ Jesus here on earth offered Himself as the sacrifice, and now He is gone into the holy of holies there to present the blood before the mercy-seat of God. Thus He is described by St. Peter (Acts, v. 31) as being exalted to be a “Prince and a Saviour;” a Prince, because He is exalted as King of kings and Lord of lords; a Saviour, because as a living friend, He is saving those whom, when on earth, He redeemed by His blood. Every passage, therefore, which describes Him in His present condition, represents Him as in the possession of living power. Sometimes He is said to be reigning, as (1 Cor. xv. 25), “He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet.” Sometimes we see Him as the Priest (Heb. iv. 14), “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God.” Sometimes He is the Advocate (1 John, ii. 1, 2), “If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;” and sometimes He is the loving Friend, watching the struggles of His faithful disciples, and waiting to welcome His dying servant in the solemn moments of his rough and stormy martyrdom. p. 8“Behold,” said Stephen, “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God;” and so, having seen it, he followed up the vision by the dying prayer, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts, vii. 56.)
3. That this sacrifice is a sacrifice of propitiation for sin. There is a sacrifice of self-dedication, which every loving heart is required to offer: as in the words after the Lord’s Supper,—“Here we offer and present unto Thee ourselves, out souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto Thee.” But in that case the offering is ourselves, and the motive is not propitiation, but dedication. According to the teaching of Rome the offering is the Lord Jesus Christ, and the object is to make a propitiation for sin.