时间：<2020-06-07 17:02:22 作者：OD最爽的撸管方法7YC 浏览量：9777
I have quoted the passage from Rome in which it says there is “body, soul, and divinity.” But what does any one of those passages say about soul and divinity? If He had meant to teach us that the bread was changed into His broken body, what one word is there about the soul, or the Godhead? All that is added by Rome, and the whole fabric of superstition based upon it is without a shadow of foundation in the word of God. It is a vast superstructure, but, as far as the teaching of Holy Scripture is concerned, utterly baseless.“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.”
2 Cor. v. 18, 19.2 Cor. v. 18, 19.I. The contrast.
Rom. xii. 1.
3. Once more: the sacrifice involves the free gift of money. Money with most men lies very near the heart. Open the heart, and you open the purse. Let the heart become dull, lifeless, cold, and unfeeling, and the purse soon closes. Thus the sacrifice of Self is almost sure to lead to the offering of money. Cold hearts give little; but when the heart is full the offerings flow freely. The men of Macedonia were poor people, but no sooner had they given their own selves to the Lord than “the abundance of their joy, and their deep poverty, abounded unto the riches of their liberality.” Now these offerings p. 39are described in the Scriptures as a sacrifice to God. St. Paul alludes to them, in Philip, iv. 18. It is not perfectly clear whether he alludes to a contribution towards his own maintenance, or to the collection in which he took so deep an interest for the poor saints in Jerusalem; but, either way, he describes the offerings as an odour of a sweet smell, a “sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.” This gives a delightful view of contributions in a right spirit for the service of the Lord. It shows that the free and generous giver thereby offers a sacrifice well pleasing to God. It rebukes at the same time the niggardly and parsimonious spirit, the spirit that gives reluctantly, and complains of many calls. Yet I verily believe that to give freely can scarcely be called a sacrifice, for no money gives so much pleasure as that freely offered to the Lord’s service; and no people enjoy property so much as they do who are free and open-hearted givers. I have not the slightest hesitation, therefore, in appealing to you for free and generous offerings, for I can say as St. Paul said (Philip, iv. 17), “I desire fruit that may abound to your account;” and I am thoroughly persuaded, that no person who is induced to give freely will ever repent of p. 40“a sacrifice acceptable and well pleasing to God.”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.His place, then, is heaven itself; and His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Father. In His real human body He has ever been like ourselves, in one place at one time. When He was here he passed from place to place; from Galilee to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to Galilee. So when Lazarus died He was absent from Bethany, and after his death He went there. Just so in His ascension He passed into the heavens, and, being there, He is as much absent from us in the body as He was absent from Martha and Mary in their deep anxiety about their brother. When present here, in His human person, He was absent there. Being present there, He is now absent here. 
2. That whenever the Mass is administered, He, the living Saviour, is again sacrificed and put to death.
We see, then, that the ministry of reconciliation is neither by sacrifice, nor by priestly forgiveness; but we have still to consider by what means the great work is carried on.
In x. 3, 4, we are distinctly taught that the one reason why these sacrifices were repeated was, that it was impossible for them to be effectual in removing guilt. “In those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” The dark stain of sin is far too dreadful a thing to be blotted out by the blood of any animal. Those sacrifices did very well as remembrancers. They were daily reminders, and daily acknowledgments of guilt; but as for putting it away, they had no virtue in them, and they p. 25were powerless. They were most important likewise as types; as helping believers, with the eye of faith, to look on and trust to the one sufficient sacrifice of the Lord; and so believers, looking to Christ as represented in the slain lamb, could, through faith in Him, find pardon and peace to their souls. But in themselves they were utterly powerless, for nothing short of the perfect sacrifice of the Son of God could ever really take away sin.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.Heb. x. 12.
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.The second is from the rubric in the service for the Visitation of the Sick, where we read—“Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter.”