Sometimes it will be necessary to apply it to individuals, when the conscience is troubled by the conviction of sin. Our Church alludes to this in two passages often referred to. The first is from the close of the invitation to the Lord’s Supper,—“And because it is requisite that no man should come to the Holy Communion but with a full trust in God’s mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore, if there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further counsel or comfort, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God’s word, and open his grief: that by the ministry of God’s holy word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.”
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.In support of this view of the passage it should be observed, that He does not say that the sins are remitted in heaven, or by God, or by Himself; but simply says they are remitted, as though He had said, “I give you full authority to decide; and when you do so, the decision is final.” If this be the true view of the passage, we can perfectly understand the use of it in the Ordination Service. The whole Church cannot exercise this power, and must depute it to executive officers. These officers are the elders, or presbyters, or priests; and, therefore, when they are ordained, the Bishop first asks them, “Will p. 62you give your faithful diligence always so to administer the doctrine, and sacraments, and discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and nation hath received the same?” And after the commission has been given he adds, “And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments.”
THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION.But I do not deny that the text is one of considerable difficulty. The first great difficulty is to ascertain to whom the words were spoken. From Luke, xxiv. 33, we find that the persons present were “the eleven, and them that were with them;” and there is nothing in the record to decide whether the words were addressed to the eleven Apostles separately, or to the whole company—including, of course, laymen and women. My own belief is, that they were addressed to the eleven separately, and conveyed a special judicial power to these inspired men. That they possessed such a power p. 59is clear from history; for when Peter retained the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, God ratified his decision by their death; and when St. Paul passed sentence on the incestuous person at Corinth, he clearly claimed a supernatural power of judgment when he said (1 Cor. v. 3-5), “For I verily, as absent in body but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” So when he remitted the same sentence he clearly claimed special right to do so; as he said, “If I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it, in the person of Christ.” But if this were the case, and if the power was given to the Apostles as a part of their apostolic office, it follows that with the Apostles it must have ceased for ever. Accordingly, in our Lord’s words there is not the smallest hint at transmission; and as for the idea that the Apostles could transmit it to the Bishops, and the Bishops to the Presbyters, it is altogether without foundation p. 60in the word of God. In fact, the case of the Corinthians proves clearly that it was not so transmitted. There cannot be a doubt, that when the epistle was written there were Presbyters in the Church of Corinth; and it is clear that Titus had just been there on a special mission, for he it was who brought to St. Paul the tidings of the repentance of the Corinthians (2 Cor. vii. 6, 7, and xii. 17, 18). But yet none of these persons appear to have had a transmitted power. It was necessary to refer the case to St. Paul himself. He retained and he remitted; and he did both “in the person of Christ.”
How gloriously different is the one sacrifice of the Son of God! It, and it alone, was sufficient for all the sins of the whole world. The substitution of the Son of God for the sinner satisfied the whole law, and cleared away the whole curse. It not only in God’s counsels removed the guilt, but it reaches the very depths of the human heart, and gives peace to the conscience wounded for sin. Observe the words in ix. 13, 14, as contrasted with those in x. 2. In x. 2 we are taught, that if those sacrifices could have purged the conscience, they would have ceased. But in ix. 14 we read, that through the sacrifice of our blessed Lord, this very thing is done; for the Apostle says:—“How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” The one sacrifice was effective to purge the conscience; while all the whole multitude of often-repeated offerings left the conscience just p. 27where it was; without rest, without peace, without any real satisfaction, under the painful pressure of a deeply-felt sin. Let us never forget this great result; for it shows that we have that which the Jew, in his sacrifices taken alone, could never have—a conscience at rest, a conscience set free, because all sin is blotted out for ever; a conscience released from its burden, because the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was a divinely-appointed substitute for guilt.
Sometimes it will be necessary to apply it to individuals, when the conscience is troubled by the conviction of sin. Our Church alludes to this in two passages often referred to. The first is from the close of the invitation to the Lord’s Supper,—“And because it is requisite that no man should come to the Holy Communion but with a full trust in God’s mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore, if there be any of you, who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further counsel or comfort, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God’s word, and open his grief: that by the ministry of God’s holy word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.”p. 34But still we read in Scripture of another sacrifice—a sacrifice which Christian people are called to offer. Thus in this text St. Paul says, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” To this appeal the words in our Communion Service are the Christian’s reply:—“And here we offer and present unto thee ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee.” It clearly remains, therefore, for us to examine the character of this second sacrifice, and also its relationship to the great and perfect sacrifice completed on the cross for sin. This, then, if God permit, shall be our subject this morning. May the Lord dispose our hearts to bring to Him this holy sacrifice, that we, if we live, may live not unto ourselves, but unto Him “that died for us, and rose again!”
But now, believing that there is no change whatever in the bread and wine—that the bread remains bread, and the wine wine, what shall we say of the practice of adoring the bread as God Himself? What can we say of it? What is our duty to say of it? I doubt not that some may think me very uncharitable and bigoted, but these are days in which the truth must be spoken, and that truth I firmly believe to be that such worship is idolatry. I do not doubt that many are sincere and conscientious in adopting it. But that does not touch the question. Sincerity does not prove truth. Are there none sincere when they sacrifice their lives under the car of Juggernaut? Was not Saul of Tarsus sincere when he persecuted the Lord Jesus in the persons of His people? I fully admit likewise that the worship may in some be based on a deep sense of love and reverence for our blessed Lord. But, again, that does not touch the question. If it is bread, it is idolatry to worship it as God. If it be still a lifeless wafer, it is idolatry to adore it as a living Saviour. God forbid that I should speak harshly of many who have set us an example of self-denial; and p. 16it is in no harsh spirit that I speak as I do. We should rather feel the most tender compassion for conscientious persons, who have been thus misled. But whatever we may think of motives, it is impossible to alter the facts, and I see not how we can avoid the conclusion that such worship is an awful sin in the sight of God. It is almost impossible to turn aside the stern reproof of God by the ministry of His prophets, Isa. xliv. 16, 17: “He burneth part thereof 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 worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.”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