I verily believe that the fact of this Divine appointment of the ministry is too often forgotten; and that thereby God’s people—and more particularly God’s faithful ministers—often miss the great encouragement to be derived from it. There is a tendency in some minds to suppose that God gives a special blessing on irregular efforts, and that the stated ministry of God’s word in church is not accompanied by the same blessing as the preaching of laymen in town-halls, iron-rooms, and theatres. God forbid that I should speak with the smallest disrespect of these irregular efforts, for I rejoice in the zeal of those who make them, and I firmly believe that in many cases God has greatly blessed them; so that, if only these gentlemen would but be content to act with God’s appointed p. 51ministry, instead of taking their own course entirely independent of it, I believe we might, with great advantage to ourselves and our people, avail ourselves of their devotedness and power. But it would be a sin to believe that God’s blessing is limited in any way to that which is irregular; that the only fleece on which the dew fails to distil is that which He Himself has placed to catch it. If He Himself has given us our ministry, if He has made us overseers of the flock, it would be doubting the fundamental principles of Divine fidelity to believe that having called us, having placed us, and having Himself given us our great commission, He would leave us to struggle on alone, untaught, unaided, and unblessed by the presence and power of the Holy Ghost. We may apply to the ministry what St. Paul says to the Christian,—“Faithful is He that calleth you, who also will do it;” and all of us, whether ministers or people, while we look for great gifts, great blessings, and great results, may rest assured that God is faithful, and will never leave those whom He Himself has appointed for His work.
1. The words themselves prove that they are figurative. Turn to 1 Cor. xi. 25, where we read: “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” Is there any one blind enough to suppose that the cup was changed into the new testament? The words must mean that the cup was an emblem of the covenant. When our Lord said, “I am the vine,” “I am the door,” “I am the bread of life,” He did not mean that He was changed into a vine, into a door, or into bread, but that all these things were emblems of His work. So He says of the cup, that it is an emblem of the covenant; and if we would be consistent interpreters, we must believe also of the bread that it was declared to be an emblem of the body.
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.
2. That whenever the Mass is administered, He, the living Saviour, is again sacrificed and put to death.
II. Such, then, is the contrast; and now let us turn, in the second place, to the reason of it. Why were those ancient sacrifices so often repeated? and why was ours once and for ever? The same passage that brings out the contrast explains the reason of it; and the reason is that, p. 24in themselves, they have no saving power, and that ours has. They were ineffectual for the blotting out of sin, but the one offering of our Blessed Lord was perfectly effectual in the very point where they failed. There was as great a contrast in respect of efficiency as there was in respect of frequency; and, in fact, the repetition was the result of weakness, as the oneness was the result of complete sufficiency. This insufficiency is placed in two points of view in the chapter, for we are there taught, first, that these sacrifices could not take away sin, and, secondly, that they could not satisfy the conscience.
p. 11The wafer, therefore, or the piece of bread, is here said to be after consecration nothing less than a real, living Saviour, with body, soul, and divinity, to be worshipped with that holy, reverential worship which belongs exclusively to the God of heaven and earth, for that is the meaning of the word Latreia. There is something very awful in such a statement. It shows that there can be no peace with Rome—no compromise, no middle path. If they are right, we are awfully wrong. If we are right, they are guilty of idolatry. If all these pieces of bread are living Saviours, we have been terribly guilty in never worshipping any one of them; but if, on the other hand, they have remained bread still—plain, simple, unchanged bread—then we have idolatry of the most unquestionable character when that bread is exalted by the priest for adoration, and men fall down and worship it as the living God.
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.
In Matt. xxvi. 29, our Lord calls the wine the fruit of the vine after consecration.Institute of Plasma Physics, Hefei Institutes of Physical Science (ASIPP, HFIPS) undertakes the procurement package of superconducting conductors, correction coil, superconducting feeder, power supply and diagnosis, accounting for nearly 80% of China's ITER procurement package.
"I am so proud of our team and it’s a great pleasure for me working here," said BAO Liman, an engineer from ASIPP, HFIPS, who was invited to sit near Chinese National flay on the podium at the kick-off ceremony to represent Chinese team. BAO, with some 30 ASIPP engineers, has been working in ITER Tokamak department for more than ten years. Due to the suspended international traveling by COVID-19, most of the Chinese people who are engaged in ITER construction celebrated this important moment at home through live broadcasting.
One of ASIPP’s undertakes, the number 6 poloidal field superconducting coil (or PF6 coil) , the heaviest superconducting coil in the world, was completed last year, and arrived at ITER site this June. PF6 timely manufacturing and delivery made a solid foundation for ITER sub-assembly, it will be installed at the bottom of the ITER cryostat.
Last year, a China-France Consortium in which ASIPP takes a part has won the bid of the first ITER Tokamak Assembly task, TAC-1, a core and important part of the ITER Tokamak assembly.
Exactly as Bernard BIGOT, Director-General of ITER Organization, commented at a press conference after the ceremony, Chinese team was highly regarded for what they have done to ITER project with excellent completion of procurement package.
The kick-off ceremony for ITER assembly (Image by Pierre Genevier-Tarel-ITER Organization)
the number 6 poloidal field superconducting coil (Image by ASIPP, HFIPS)
ITER-TAC1 Contract Signing Ceremony (Image by ASIPP, HFIPS)
52 Sanlihe Rd., Beijing,
Copyright © 2002 - Chinese Academy of Sciences