加爾文基督教要義(84)卷四第十八章 論教皇的彌撒不僅褻瀆而且毀滅聖餐

第十八章 論教皇的彌撒不僅褻瀆而且毀滅聖餐
　　一至七、以彌撒為可憎之事——從略。
　　八、私人彌撒乃是褻瀆聖餐——從略。
　　九、當教會比較純正的時候，私人彌撒的腐敗制度是未曾聽聞的。不管我們的對敵如何唐突無禮地要弄混這件事，但毫無疑問，教父們反對他們，這是我們已在論其他各點中所表明的，也是由細讀教父們的著作所能知道的。在結束這個題目之前，我要問那些贊成彌撒祭的人，他們既然知道主不喜悅祭，只喜悅人聽從他的話，而且聽命勝於獻祭（參撒上15：22），那麼，他們對這種不是出於主的命令，而聖經上又無任何一字加以批准的祭，怎能相信可蒙神悅納呢？再者他們曾聽到使徒保羅說過：「這祭司的尊榮，沒有人自取，惟要蒙神所召，像亞倫一樣。即令基督也不是自取榮耀作大祭司，」而是順從聖父的召命（來5：4，5）。這樣，他們就必須證明神乃是他們的祭司職分的設立者，否則，他們就得承認，這祭司的尊榮不是由神而來，乃是他們僭妄自取的，而並未蒙了神的召命。他們不能提出絲毫證據，來維持他們的祭司職。這樣一來，他們的祭有什麼用呢？因為若沒有祭司就不能有祭。
　　十、倘若有人從古代教父們的著作中斷章取義，引來爭辯說，在聖餐中所獻的祭，不當照我們所說的去了解，那麼，我要作下面簡短的答覆說：若問題是在於證明教皇當徒所捏造的彌撒獻祭，古代教父就決未贊成這種褻瀆神的舉動。誠然，他們用了「獻祭」一辭，可是他們同時明白宣布，他們除記念惟一的大祭司基督在十字架所完成的惟一真獻祭外，沒有別的意思。奧古斯丁說：「希伯來人所獻給上帝的犧牲，乃是預表後來基督所獻給上帝的祭；現在基督徒藉著分享基督身體的聖餐，乃是記念基督所已完成的祭。」這裡，奧氏所教訓的，顯然和那被指為他——雖然作者為誰，是有疑問的——對執事彼得所寫的信仰論所詳述的見解，是同樣的。那論文有一段話，說：「你們要堅信不疑，神的獨生子，既為我們成為肉身，就為我們將自己獻給神，作了馨香的祭；舊約時代對他和聖父，聖靈，是用動物獻祭；今日對他和聖父，聖靈（因為三位都具有同一神性），普世聖教會不斷獻上餅與酒的祭。因為古時那些動物是預表基督為我們的罪所獻的身體，和為赦免我們的罪所流的血。但如今的祭具有一種為感謝和記念基督為我們捨身流血的意思。」因此，奧氏自己也在許多章節上表明，這種祭無非是一種讚美的祭。所以我們在奧氏的文章上常發現，聖餐其所以稱為獻祭，無非是因為這是基督拯救我們惟一的真獻祭的一個記念，象徵，和證據。在奧氏的三位一體論中，也有著名的一段，即在討論惟一的獻祭后，他便結束說：「在獻祭中，有四件當注意的事：向誰獻祭，由誰獻祭，獻的是什麼，為誰獻祭。那唯一真實的中保，以平安祭來使我們與上帝和好，他與接受獻祭的上帝仍為一體；他與我們打成一片而為我們獻祭；他自己是獻祭的，也是所獻的祭。」屈梭多模也同樣說。教父們將祭司職分的尊榮完全歸於基督。奧古斯丁甚至說，若有人以主教來當作神與人中間的代求者，那乃是敵基督者的說法。
　　十一、然而我們並不否認，在聖餐中基督作為犧牲如此對我們表現出來，幾乎是將十字架擺在我們眼前，正如保羅藉著向加拉太人所傳的十字架，說：「耶穌基督釘十字架，活畫在你們眼前」（加3： 1）。但是我既看到，古教父將這作為記念的聖餐誤用，以之為一種重新獻祭，那麼虔敬人最好是要服從主純粹的命令；而它之所以稱為主的聖餐，乃是因為它只當照主唯一的權威而行。我既發現他們對這個奧秘有虔誠正統的態度，而且既未察覺他們對基督的唯一獻祭有絲毫貶損，我不敢指責他們為不虔敬，然而我不能為他們辯白他們在聖餐禮的形式上所犯的錯誤。因為他們效法猶太人獻祭的樣式，過於主所吩咐的或福音所許可的。因之，他們所應受的咎責，乃是他們過於遵照舊約上的辦法，並不以基督所設立的樸實純粹的聖餐為滿足，而過於模仿律法。
　　十二、若有人留意考察，他就會看出主的話，將我們的聖餐和摩西的各種獻祭顯然劃分。雖然摩西律法中的各種獻祭對猶太人表明基督的死的功效，正如在聖餐中向我們所表明的一樣，然而其表明的方式乃是不同的。因為猶太人的祭司受命去預表基督所要獻的祭；用動物作犧牲，以代表基督；設有祭壇，來獻牲；總而言之，每一件事都是為要在百姓眼前表明向神獻祭贖罪。但是主既完成了這贖罪的祭，他就給我們規定了另一種方法，以便將他兒子所獻與他之祭的恩惠傳達給信徒。因此，他給我們的，乃是聖餐的棹，而不是獻牲的祭壇；他並未立祭司來獻祭，而是派牧師來分發聖餐。因著聖餐有更高的莊嚴與聖潔，就應以更大的尊敬來對待。所以，最安全的辦法乃是擯棄一切理智的臆斷，嚴格遵守聖經上所吩咐的。誠然，我們若想到聖餐乃是主的，而不是人的，我們就不敢因人的威權或古老的習俗而把聖經上的規律絲毫加以移動。所以當保羅想要將那引入哥林多教會聖餐禮中的各種錯誤滌清時，他就採用現成的最好方法，追索到主惟一原有的設施，以之作為聖餐禮的永遠規律。
　　十三、為求使爭辯者不能假「獻祭」和「祭司」辭語，來乘機反對我們，我要簡短說明，我用這兩個辭語，有何意義。有人用「獻祭」一辭指一切宗教的儀式和舉動，但是我以為這是沒有理由的。我們知道，這辭語在聖經上的用法，是與希臘人的用法一樣，通常是指凡對神所奉獻的。因此，我們必須有所區別。但這區別必須與摩西律法上的獻祭相符；在這律法的影兒下，主已將一切關於屬靈獻祭的真實意義向他的百姓表明了。獻祭雖有種種形式，然而可分為兩類。一類是為贖罪所獻的祭，以求在神前使罪得赦。另一類是崇拜神和對神表示虔誠的表徵。第二類包括三種獻祭：有些獻祭是求神施恩；有些獻祭是為所蒙的恩表示感謝；有些獻祭是表明敬虔，重新堅固所立的約：這一類的獻祭包括燔祭，奠祭，初熟果子和平安祭。所以讓我們將獻祭也分為兩種。稱一種為「虔誠崇拜之祭」，因為這一種獻祭包括人對神的尊敬和禮拜，這是神對信徒所索取所接受的；這或可稱為「感恩祭」，因為這是惟獨由那些深荷神恩的人，將他們自己和其行動向神獻上，以資報答。另一種可稱為「贖罪祭」。贖罪祭乃獻給神。以止息神的忿怒，滿足神的公義，因而使罪人既從不義的玷污中拯救出來，重返於純潔的義，就可再蒙神眷愛。這乃是在律法之下用犧牲獻贖罪祭的意義；並不是說，它們足以恢復神的眷愛，或免除不義，而是說，它們預表那最後只有由基督所成就真實的獻祭；只有由基督，因為沒有人能獻這樣的祭；而且只有這一次，因為這一次獻祭的效能是永恆的；正如基督自己說：「成了」（約19：30）；那就是說，凡使我們與天父和好，獲得赦罪，稱義，和拯救所必須的，都為基督的這一次獻祭所完成了，這一次獻祭是如此完全，使以後再無獻祭的餘地了。
　　十四、因此我認為，若有人再想獻祭以求使罪得赦，止息神怒，獲得稱義，那便是對基督本身和他替我們死在十字架上所完成的獻祭，最惡毒的侮辱，和不可容忍的褻瀆。但是，彌撒的目的是什麼呢？無非是要用一種新獻祭的功德，來使人分享基督受難之功。他們稱彌撒為替全教會所獻的祭，還不以為足，更變本加厲，進而申明他們有權將彌撒個別施與任何由他們所選定的人，意即施與那一切肯用錢贖買這種彌撒商品的人，雖然他們不能獲得猶大賣主所得的價錢，然而，為要表現猶大的一些作風，他們也採取他的那個數目。猶大賣耶穌得了三十塊銀子；他們卻把賣他三十塊法蘭西銅幣；猶大隻一次出賣主，他們卻每次碰到買主就出賣他。我們否認他們是祭司，否認他們能夠用這種獻祭來為人民向上帝代求，否認他們能止息神怒，或使人的罪得赦。因為基督乃是新約惟一的祭司，和大祭司，古時一切祭司職分都轉移到了基督身上，而且在他身上都終結了。即令聖經上未曾提到基督的永恆祭司職，然而神既自從廢止以前的祭司職后，再沒有設立別的祭司職，那麼，使徒所說：「這大祭司的尊榮，沒有人自取，惟要蒙神所召」（來5：4），乃是不能否認的。那麼，這些褻瀆的凡夫，自誇是殺害基督的，怎敢還稱自己為活神的祭司呢？
　　十五、在柏拉圖的共和國中，有一段美妙的話，論到古時異教徒贖罪之法。他嘲笑那些邪惡放蕩之輩，愚蠢地相信他們的掩飾可以將他們的罪惡掩蓋，使神看不見，好像他們已與他們的神成立了妥協，所以就更加放縱犯罪起來。這一段話好像是描寫今世用彌撒來贖罪的人。欺騙勒索人，大家都知道是不法的行為。傷害寡婦，劫掠孤兒，擾害窮人，以邪惡技巧奪人產業，以欺詐偽證襲人財富，或以暴虐恐嚇壓迫鄰舍，大家公認是罪大惡極。那麼，為何這許多人膽敢犯這一切的罪，好像可以沉溺於其中而無虞似的？倘若我們仔細查考，便要發現他們的勇氣，無非是在於他們相信藉著彌撒祭，他們就對上帝盡了一切責任，使他滿意，或至少使他們自己容易與神成立妥協。柏拉圖後來曾譏笑那些想用這種贖罪方法，逃避所應受的地獄刑罰的人，說他們是極端愚笨的。那些喪禮或周年的葬式，以及大部分的彌撒，其目的豈不是要給那些終生極端殘酷的暴君和罪大惡極的強盜作為一種贖價，讓他們來逃避地獄的烈火嗎？
　　十六、感恩祭乃在乎虔誠和仁愛——從略。
　　十七、祈求，感謝，讚美也稱為祭，而這乃是聖餐所必須有的——從略。
　　十八、彌撒乃是可憎的，這豈不是瞎子也能看見，聾子也能聽見，甚至童稚也能知道的事嗎？這彌撒祭用金器舉行，叫地上的一切王公庶民，從至上的到最下的，都昏迷愚昧甚於禽獸，把他們的整個救贖都寄寓於這害人的深淵中。撒但真是沒有用過比這更有能力的法寶，來攻克基督的國了。這就是那赫楞（Helen），為著她，今日真理的仇敵以殘暴，憤怒和兇猛來爭辯；他們同這個赫楞行屬靈的淫亂，玷污自己，這是極可咒詛的淫亂。這裡我且完全不論他們所謂不過是對彌撒的濫用，例如，他們可恥地買賣彌撒，用彌撒賺了許多髒錢，並貪得無厭，以飽自己的貪慾。我只要用幾句坦白的話，來指出彌撒到底是多麼神聖，它在若干世代受人崇拜，到底是配不配。若要解明這些奧秘的尊嚴偉大，就需要用一篇更長的論文；但是我不願提出那些聲名狼藉可厭的腐敗情形；人人都當知道，雖然不涉及彌撒的附屬品，而只就它最上等最可敬的純粹來說，從頭至尾它都充滿邪惡，褻瀆，偶像崇拜和侮辱神的罪。
　　十九、關於教會的這兩個聖禮，就我所認為最當知道的，差不多都搜集於這簡明的概論中了。從新約起到末世，主已命令教會遵守這兩個聖禮：即洗禮，作為進入教會，開始承認信仰的聖禮；和聖餐，作為一種不斷的靈性培養，藉著聖餐基督用靈糧餵養凡進入他家裡的信徒。正如只有「一上帝，一基督，一信仰，」和一個教會，即基督的身體，照樣只有「一洗禮」，它是決不可重複的；但聖餐必須常常舉行，叫那些已歸入教會的人可以知道，他們乃是不斷地為基督所餵養。在這兩個聖餐之外，神既沒有設立別的聖禮，所以信徒的教會不當承認另有聖禮。聖禮並不是隨人意而設立的，這一點很容易懂得，只要我們記得著前面所明白說過的，即聖禮是由神設立來將他的應許教訓我們，且將他對我們的善意向我們表明；又只要我們想得到，沒有人作過神的謀士，沒有人能使我們確定他的旨意（賽40： 13；羅11：34），或確知他對我們要賜予或拒絕什麼。所以沒有人能夠設立一個表明神的決定或應許的表記；只有神自己能夠設立表記，向我們表明他自己。我將以更精密，更家常，更明顯的話，來表達這意思：沒有聖禮不是連帶著一個救恩的應許的。全人類合起來，也不能給我們得救的應許。所以他們永遠不能自行設立一個聖禮。
　　二十、因此，基督教會要以此兩個聖禮為足，不但現在不要再容許或承認別的聖禮，而且直到世界的末了，也不要再指望另有聖禮。固然猶太人於通常的聖禮之外，隨時代和情形的不同而另有幾個聖禮，即如嗎哪，磐石中流出的活水，銅蛇等，但是神教訓他們不要依靠這些暫時的表象，倒要從神指望永不變的更美之事。但是現在的情形大不相同了：基督已經向我們啟示了出來，「一切智慧知識，都在他裡面藏著」（西2：3），而且如此豐富滿溢，如再謀求或希望對這寶貝增加什麼，那就真要使神不悅，惹他向我們發怒了。我們必須渴慕基督，一心追求他，默想他，學習他，直到主完全彰顯他國的榮耀，叫「我們得見他真體」（約壹3：2）的那大日臨到。因為這個原因，我們所處的時代稱為「末時」，「末世」，「末日」，（約壹2：18；彼前1：20；徒 2：17），好使人不得指望有什麼新教義或啟示。因為「神既在古時藉著眾先知，多次多方的曉諭列祖，就在這末世，藉著他兒子曉諭我們」（來1：1，2），只有他能夠「啟示父」（路10：22），而且照我們的幸福所必須的，他「將父表明出來」（約1：18），但「我們如今彷彿對著鏡子觀看，模糊不清」（林前 13：12）。人既不能在主的教會中設立新聖禮，也不應該將自己的捏造混在神的設施中。正如酒滲了水，就沖淡失了味，正如麥粉撒上酵母，就變酸了，照樣神的純潔奧秘若加上人的東西，就被玷污了。我們看到，今日的聖餐是如何退化，遠離了原來的純潔，到處都是過度的虛飾，儀式，和手勢，對於神的話卻不想到或提及。可是沒有主的話，聖餐也就不成其為聖餐。神所設立的儀式，被這麼一堆儀式壓倒了。在洗禮中，那本當作為惟一顯著目標的洗禮本身，是怎樣少為人看見。而主的聖餐既變為彌撒，也完全被掩蓋了；至多一年只領一次，而且只是部分的不全的。

一至七、以彌撒為可憎之事——從略。

(Rejection of the Mass as sacrilegious and as a nullification of the Lord's Supper, 1-7)
1. The Romanist doctrine

By these and similar inventions, Satan has attempted to adulterate and envelop the sacred Supper of Christ as with thick darkness, that its purity might not be preserved in the Church. But the head of this horrid abomination was, when he raised a sign by which it was not only obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and abolished, vanished away and disappeared from the memory of man; namely, when, with most pestilential error, he blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins.

I say nothing as to the way in which the sounder schoolmen at first received this dogma. I leave them with their puzzling subtleties which, however they may be defended by cavilling, are to be repudiated by all good men, because all they do is to envelop the brightness of the Supper in great darkness. Bidding adieu to them, therefore, let my readers understand that I am here combating that opinion with which the Roman Antichrist and his prophets have imbued the whole world, viz., that the mass is a work by which the priest who offers Christ, and the others who in the oblation receive him, gain merit with God, or that it is an expiatory victim by which they regain the favour of God.

And this is not merely the common opinion of the vulgar, but the very act has been so arranged as to be a kind of propitiation, by which satisfaction is made to God for the living and the dead. This is also expressed by the words employed, and the same thing may be inferred from daily practice. I am aware how deeply this plague has struck its roots; under what a semblance of good it conceals its true character, bearing the name of Christ before it, and making many believe that under the single name of Mass is comprehended the whole sum of faith.

But when it shall have been most clearly proved by the word of God, that this mass, however glossed and splendid, offers the greatest insult to Christ, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death was retained, will its roots be so deep that this most powerful axe, the word of God, will not cut it down and destroy it? Will any semblance be so specious that this light will not expose the lurking evil?

2. The Mass as blasphemy against Christ

Let us show, therefore as was proposed in the first place, that in the mass intolerable blasphemy and insult are offered to Christ. For he was not appointed Priest and Pontiff by the Fathers for a time merely, as priests were appointed under the Old Testament. Since their life was mortal, their priesthood could not be immortal, and hence there was need of successors, who might ever and anon be substituted in the room of the dead. But Christ being immortal, had not the least occasion to have a vicar substituted for him. Wherefore he was appointed by his Father a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek, that he might eternally exercise a permanent priesthood (Heb. 5:6,10; 7:17,21; 9:11; 10:21; Ps. 110:4; Gen. 14:18). This mystery had been typified long before in Melchizedek, whom Scripture, after once introducing as the priest of the living God, never afterwards mentions, as if he had had no end of life. In this way Christ is said to be a priest after his order.

But those who sacrifice daily must necessarily give the charge of their oblations to priests, whom they surrogate as the vicars and successors of Christ. By this subrogation they not only rob Christ of his honour, and take from him the prerogative of an eternal priesthood, but attempt to remove him from the right hand of his Father, where he cannot sit immortal without being an eternal priest. Nor let them allege that their priestlings are not substituted for Christ, as if he were dead, but are only substitutes in that eternal priesthood, which therefore ceases not to exist. The words of the apostle are too stringent to leave them any means of evasion, viz., "They truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever, has an unchangeable priesthood," (Heb. 7: 23, 24.) Yet such is their dishonesty, that to defend their impiety they arm themselves with the example of Melchizedek. As he is said to have "brought forth (obtulisse) bread and wine," (Gen. 14: 18,) they infer that it was a prelude to their mass, as if there was any resemblance between him and Christ in the offering of bread and wine. This is too silly and frivolous to need refutation. Melchizedek gave bread and wine to Abraham and his companions, that he might refresh them when worn out with the march and the battle. What has this to do with sacrifice? The humanity of the holy king is praised by Moses: these men absurdly coin a mystery of which there is no mention. They, however, put another gloss upon their error, because it is immediately added, he was "priest of the most high God." I answer, that they erroneously wrest to bread and wine what the apostle refers to blessing. "This Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham," "and blessed him." Hence the same apostle (and a better interpreter cannot be desired) infers his excellence. "Without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better." But if the oblation of Melchizedek was a figure of the sacrifice of the mass, I ask, would the apostle, who goes into the minutes details, have forgotten a matter so grave and serious? Now, however they quibble, it is in vain for them to attempt to destroy the argument which is adduced by the apostle himself viz., that the right and honour of the priesthood has ceased among mortal men, because Christ, who is immortal, is the one perpetual priest (Heb. 7:17-19).

3. The Mass as suppression of Christ's Passion

Another iniquity chargeable on the mass is, that it sinks and buries the cross and passion of Christ. This much, indeed, is most certain, - the cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an altar is erected. For if, on the cross, he offered himself in sacrifice that he might sanctify us for ever, and purchase eternal redemption for us (Heb. 9:12), undoubtedly the power and efficacy of his sacrifice continues without end. Otherwise, we should not think more honourably of Christ than of the oxen and calves which were sacrificed under the law, the offering of which is proved to have been weak and inefficacious because often repeated. Wherefore, it must be admitted, either that the sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross wanted the power of eternal cleansing, or that he performed this once for ever by his one sacrifice. Accordingly, the apostle says, "Now once in the end of the world has he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Again: "By the which act we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Heb. 10:10). Again: "For by one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Heb. 10:14). To this he subjoins the celebrated passage: "Now, where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." (Heb. 10:18; cf. v.26). The same thing Christ intimated by his latest voice, when, on giving up the ghost, he exclaimed, "It is finished." (John 19:30). We are accustomed to observe the last words of the dying as oracular. Christ, when dying, declares, that by his one sacrifice is perfected and fulfilled whatever was necessary to our salvation. To such a sacrifice, whose perfection he so clearly declared, shall we, as if it were imperfect, presume daily to append innumerable sacrifices? Since the sacred word of God not only affirms, but proclaims and protests, that this sacrifice was once accomplished, and remains eternally in force, do not those who demand another charge it with imperfection and weakness? But to what tends the mass which has been established, that a hundred thousand sacrifices may be performed every day, but just to bury and suppress the passion of our Lord, in which he offered himself to his Father as the only victim? Who but a blind man does not see that it was Satanic audacity to oppose a truth so clear and transparent? I am not unaware of the impostures by which the father of lies is wont to cloak his frauds viz., that the sacrifices are not different or various, but that the one sacrifice is repeated. Such smoke is easily dispersed. The apostle, during his whole discourse, contends not only that there are no other sacrifices, but that that one was once offered, and is no more to be repeated. The more subtle try to make their escape by a still narrower loophole, viz., that it is not repetition, but application. But there is no more difficulty in confuting this sophism also. For Christ did not offer himself once, in the view that his sacrifice should be daily ratified by new oblations, but that by the preaching of the gospel and the dispensation of the sacred Supper, the benefit of it should be communicated to us. Thus Paul says, that "Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us," and bids us "keep the feast," (1 Cor. 5: 7, 8.) The method, I say, in which the cross of Christ is duly applied to us is when the enjoyment is communicated to us, and we receive it with true faith.

4. The argument from Malachi 1:11

But it is worth while to hear on what other foundation besides they rear up their sacrifice of the mass. To this end they drag in the prophecy of Malachi, in which the Lord promises that "in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering," (Mal. 1: 11.) As if it were new or unusual for the prophets, when they speak of the calling of the Gentiles, to designate the spiritual worship of God to which they call them, by the external rites of the law, more familiarly to intimate to the men of their age that they were to be called into the true fellowship of religion, just as in general they are wont to describe the truth which has been exhibited by the gospel by the types of their own age. Thus they use going up to Jerusalem for conversion to the Lord, the bringing of all kinds of gifts for the adoration of God - dreams and visions for the more ample knowledge with which believers were to he endued in the kingdom of Christ. The passage they quote from Malachi resembles one in Isaiah, in which the prophet speaks of three altars to be erected in Assyria, Egypt, and Judea. First, I ask, whether or not they grant that this prophecy is fulfilled in the kingdom of Christ? Secondly, Where are those altars, or when were they ever erected? Thirdly, Do they suppose that a single temple is destined for a single kingdom, as was that of Jerusalem? If they ponder these things, they will confess I think, that the prophets under types adapted to his age, prophesied concerning the propagation of the spiritual worship of God over the whole world. This is the answer which we give them; but, as obvious examples everywhere occur in the Scripture, I am not anxious to give a longer enumeration; although they are miserably deluded in this also, that they acknowledge no sacrifice but that of the mass, whereas in truth believers now sacrifice to God and offer him a pure offering, of which we shall speak by and by.

5. The Mass brings forgetfulness of Christ's death

I now come to the third part of the mass, in regard to which, we are to explain how it obliterates the true and only death of Christ, and drives it from the memory of men. For as among men, the confirmation of a testament depends upon the death of the testator, so also the testament by which he has bequeathed to us remission of sins and eternal righteousness (Heb. 9:15-17), our Lord has confirmed by his death. Those who dare to make any change or innovation on this testament deny his death, and hold it as of no moment. Now, what is the mass but a new and altogether different testament? What? Does not each mass promise a new forgiveness of sins, a new purchase of righteousness so that now there are as many testaments as there are masses? Therefore, let Christ come again, and, by another death, make this new testament; or rather, by innumerable deaths, ratify the innumerable testaments of the mass. Said I not true, then, at the outset, that the only true death of Christ is obliterated by the mass? For what is the direct aim of the mass but just to put Christ again to death, if that were possible? For, as the apostle says, "Where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator," (Heb. 9: 16.) The novelty of the mass bears, on the face of it, to be a testament of Christ, and therefore demands his death. Besides, it is necessary that the victim which is offered be slain and immolated. If Christ is sacrificed at each mass, he must be cruelly slain every moment in a thousand places. This is not my argument, but the apostle's: "Nor yet that he should offer himself often;" "for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world," (Heb. 9: 25, 26.) I admit that they are ready with an answer, by which they even charge us with calumny; for they say that we object to them what they never thought, and could not even think. We know that the life and death of Christ are not at all in their hand. Whether they mean to slay him, we regard not: our intention is only to show the absurdity consequent on their impious and accursed dogma. This I demonstrate from the mouth of the apostle. Though they insist a hundred times that this sacrifice is bloodless, ("anaimakton",) I will reply, that it depends not on the will of man to change the nature of sacrifice, for in this way the sacred and inviolable institution of God would fall. Hence it follows, that the principle of the apostle stands firm, "without shedding of blood is no remission," (Heb. 9: 22.)

6. The Mass robs us of the benefit of Christ's death

The fourth property of the mass which we are to consider is, that it robs us of the benefit which redounded to us from the death of Christ, while it prevents us from recognising it and thinking of it. For who can think that he has been redeemed by the death of Christ when he sees a new redemption in the mass? Who can feel confident that his sins have been remitted when he sees a new remission? It will not do to say that the only ground on which we obtain forgiveness of sins in the mass is, because it has been already purchased by the death of Christ. For this is just equivalent to saying that we are redeemed by Christ on the condition that we redeem ourselves. For the doctrine which is disseminated by the ministers of Satan, and which, in the present day, they defend by clamour, fire, and sword, is, that when we offer Christ to the Father in the mass, we, by this work of oblation, obtain remission of sins, and become partakers of the sufferings of Christ. What is now left for the sufferings of Christ, but to be an example of redemption, that we may thereby learn to be our own redeemers? Christ himself when he seals our assurance of pardon in the Supper, does not bid his disciples stop short at that act, but sends them to the sacrifice of his death; intimating, that the Supper is the memento or, as it is commonly expressed, the memorial from which they may learn that the expiatory victim by which God was to be appeased was to be offered only once. For it is not sufficient to hold that Christ is the only victim, without adding that his is the only immolation, in order that our faith may be fixed to his cross.

7. The Mass as nullification of the Lord's Supper

I come now to the crowning point, viz., that the sacred Supper, on which the Lord left the memorial of his passion formed and engraved, was taken away, hidden and destroyed when the mass was erected. While the Supper itself is a gift of God, which was to be received with thanksgiving, the sacrifice of the mass pretends to give a price to God to be received as satisfaction. As widely as giving differs from receiving, does sacrifice differ from the sacrament of the Supper. But herein does the wretched ingratitude of man appear, - that wile a the liberality of the divine goodness ought to have been recognised, and thanks returned, he makes God to be his debtor. The sacrament promised that by the death of Christ we were not only restored to life once but constantly quickened, because all the parts of our salvation were then completed. The sacrifice of the mass uses a very different language, viz., that Christ must be sacrificed daily, in order that he may lend something to us. The Supper was to be dispensed at the public meeting of the Church, to remind us of the communion by which we are all united in Christ Jesus. This communion the sacrifice of the mass dissolves, and tears asunder. For after the heresy prevailed that there behaved to be priests to sacrifice for the people, as if the Supper had been handed over to them, it ceased to be communicated to the assembly of the faithful according to the command of the Lord. Entrance has been given to private masses, which more resemble a kind of excommunication than that communion ordained by the Lord, when the priestling, about to devour his victim apart, separates himself from the whole body of the faithful. That there may be no mistake, I call it a private mass whenever there is no partaking of the Lord's Supper among believers, though, at the same time, a great multitude of persons may be present.

八、私人彌撒乃是褻瀆聖餐——從略。

(Early practice and the rise of misconceptions, 8-11)
8. Private masses a repudiation of communion

The origin of the name of Mass I have never been able certainly to ascertain. It seems probable that it was derived from the offerings which were collected. Hence the ancients usually speak of it in the plural number. But without raising any controversy as to the name, I hold that private masses are diametrically opposed to the institution at Christ, and are, therefore, an impious profanation of the sacred Supper. For what did the Lord enjoin? Was it not to take and divide amongst ourselves (Luke 22:17)? What does Paul teach as to the observance of this command? Is it not that the breaking of bread is the communion of body and blood? (1 Cor. 10: 16.) Therefore, when one person takes without distributing, where is the resemblance? But that one acts in the name of the whole Church. By what command? Is it not openly to mock God when one privately seizes for himself what ought to have been distributed among a number? But as the words both of our Saviour and of Paul, are sufficiently clear, we must briefly conclude, that wherever there is no breaking of bread for the communion of the faithful, there is no Supper of the Lord, but a false and preposterous imitation at the Supper. But false imitation is adulteration. Moreover, the adulteration of this high ordinance is not without impiety. In private masses, therefore, there is an impious abuse: and as in religion, one fault ever and anon begets another, after that custom of offering without communion once crept in, they began gradually to make innumerable masses in all the separate corners of the churches, and to draw the people hither and thither, when they ought to have formed one meeting, and thus recognised the mystery of their unity. Let them now go and deny their idolatry when they exhibit the bread in their masses, that it may be adored for Christ. In vain do they talk of those promises of the presence of Christ, which, however they may be understood, were certainly not given that impure and profane men might form the body of Christ as often as they please, and for whatever abuse they please; but that believers, while, with religious observance, they follow the command of Christ in celebrating the Supper, might enjoy the true participation of it.

十六、感恩祭乃在乎虔誠和仁愛——從略。

16. The "thank offering" of the Christian church

Under the other kind of sacrifice, which we have called eucharistic, are included all the offices of charity, by which, while we embrace our brethren, we honour the Lord himself in his members; in fine, all our prayers, praises, thanksgivings, and every act of worship which we perform to God. All these depend on the greater sacrifice with which we dedicate ourselves, soul and body, to be a holy temple to the Lord (I Cor. 3:16). For it is not enough that our external acts be framed to obedience, but we must dedicate and consecrate first ourselves, and, secondly, all that we have, so that all which is in us may be subservient to his glory, and be stirred up to magnify it.

This kind of sacrifice has nothing to do with appeasing God, with obtaining remission of sins, with procuring justification, but is wholly employed in magnifying and extolling God, since it cannot be grateful and acceptable to God unless at the hand of those who, having received forgiveness of sins, have already been reconciled and freed from guilt.

This is so necessary to the Church, that it cannot be dispensed with. Therefore, it will endure for ever, so long as the people of God shall endure, as we have already seen above from the prophet. For in this sense we may understand the prophecy, "From the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts," (Malachi 1: 11;) so far are we from doing away with this sacrifice. Thus Paul beseeches us, by the mercies of God, to present our bodies "a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God," our "reasonable service," (Rom. 12: 1; cf. I Peter 2:5-6). Here he speaks very significantly when he adds, that this service is reasonable, for he refers to the spiritual mode of worshipping God, and tacitly opposes it to the carnal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. Thus to do good and communicate are called sacrifices with which God is well-pleased, (Heb. 13: 16.) Thus the kindness of the Philippians in relieving Paul's want is called "an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God," (Phil. 4: 18;) and thus all the good works of believers are called spiritual sacrifices.

十七、祈求，感謝，讚美也稱為祭，而這乃是聖餐所必須有的——從略。

17. Scriptural phrases illustrate the sacrifices of praise

And why do I enumerate? This form of expression is constantly occurring in Scripture. Nay, even while the people of God were kept under the external tutelage of the law, the prophets clearly expressed that under these carnal sacrifices there was a reality which is common both to the Jewish people and the Christian Church. For this reason David prayed, "Let my prayer ascend forth before thee as incense," (Psalm 141: 2.) And Hosea gives the name of "calves of the lips" (Hos. 14: 3) to thanksgivings, which David elsewhere calls "sacrifices of praise;" the apostle imitating him, speaks of offering "the sacrifice of praise," which he explains to mean, "the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name," (Heb. 13: 15.) This kind of sacrifice is indispensable in the Lord's Supper, in which, while we show forth his death, and give him thanks, we offer nothing but the sacrifice of praise. From this office of sacrificing, all Christians are called "a royal priesthood," because by Christ we offer that sacrifice of praise of which the apostle speaks, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name, (1 Peter 2: 9; Heb. 13: 15.) We do not appear with our gifts in the presence of God without an intercessor. Christ, our Mediator, by whose intervention we offer ourselves and our all to the Father; he is our High Priest, who, having entered into the upper sanctuary, opens up an access for us; he the altar on which we lay our gifts, that whatever we do attempts we may attempt in him; he it is, I say, who "has made us kings and priests unto God and his Father," (Rev. 1: 6.)

18. OF THE POPISH MASS. HOW IT NOT ONLY PROFANES, BUT ANNIHILATES THE LORD'S SUPPER.
The principal heads of this chapter are, -
I. The abomination of the Mass, sec. 1. Its manifold impiety included under five heads, sec. 2-7. Its origin described, sec. 8, 9.
II. Of the name of sacrifice which the ancients gave to the holy Supper, sec. 10-12. An apposite discussion on sacrifice, refitting the arguments of the Papists for the sacrifice of the Mass, sec. 13-18.
III. A summary of the doctrine of the Christian Church respecting the sacraments, paving the way for the subsequent discussion of the five sacraments, falsely so called, sec. 19, 20.

Sections.

The chief of all the abominations set up in opposition to the Lord's Supper is the Papal Mass. A description of it.
Its impiety is five-fold.
1. Its intolerable blasphemy in substituting priests to him the only Priest. Objections of the Papists answered.
Impiety of the Mass continued.
2. It overthrows the cross of Christ by setting up an altar. Objections answered.
Other objections answered.
Impiety of the Mass continued.
3. It banishes the remembrance of Christ's death. It crucifies Christ afresh. Objections answered.
Impiety of the Mass continued.
4. It robs us of the benefit of Christ's death.
Impiety of the Mass continued.
5. It abolishes the Lord's Supper. In the Supper the Father offers Christ to us; in the Mass, priestlings offer Christ to the Father. The Supper is a sacrament common to all Christians; the Mass confined to one priest.
The origin of the Mass. Private masses an impious profanation of the Supper.
This abomination unknown to the purer Church. It has no foundation in the word of God.
Second part of the chapter. Some of the ancients call the Supper a sacrifice, but not propitiatory, as the Papists do the Mass. This proved by passages from Augustine.
Some of the ancients seem to have declined too much to the shadows of the law.
Great distinction to be made between the Mosaic sacrifices and the Lord's Supper, which is called a eucharistic sacrifice. Same rule in this discussion.
The terms sacrifice and priest. Different kinds of sacrifices.
1. Propitiatory.
2. Eucharistic.
None propitiatory but the death of Christ.
The Lord's Supper not properly called a propitiatory sacrifice, still less can the Popish Mass be so called. Those who mutter over the Mass cannot be called priests.
Their vanity proved even by Plato.
To the Eucharistic class of sacrifice belong all offices of piety and charity. This species of sacrifice has no connection with the appeasing of God.
Prayer, thanksgiving, and other exercises of piety, called sacrifices. In this sense the Lord's Supper called the eucharist. In the same sense all believers are priests.
Conclusion. Names given to the Mass.
Last part of the chapter, recapitulating the views which ought to be held concerning Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Why the Lord's Supper is, and Baptism is not, repeated.
Christians should be contented with these two sacraments. They are abolished by the sacraments decreed by men.
(Rejection of the Mass as sacrilegious and as a nullification of the Lord's Supper, 1-7)
1. The Romanist doctrine

By these and similar inventions, Satan has attempted to adulterate and envelop the sacred Supper of Christ as with thick darkness, that its purity might not be preserved in the Church. But the head of this horrid abomination was, when he raised a sign by which it was not only obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and abolished, vanished away and disappeared from the memory of man; namely, when, with most pestilential error, he blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins.

I say nothing as to the way in which the sounder schoolmen at first received this dogma. I leave them with their puzzling subtleties which, however they may be defended by cavilling, are to be repudiated by all good men, because all they do is to envelop the brightness of the Supper in great darkness. Bidding adieu to them, therefore, let my readers understand that I am here combating that opinion with which the Roman Antichrist and his prophets have imbued the whole world, viz., that the mass is a work by which the priest who offers Christ, and the others who in the oblation receive him, gain merit with God, or that it is an expiatory victim by which they regain the favour of God.

And this is not merely the common opinion of the vulgar, but the very act has been so arranged as to be a kind of propitiation, by which satisfaction is made to God for the living and the dead. This is also expressed by the words employed, and the same thing may be inferred from daily practice. I am aware how deeply this plague has struck its roots; under what a semblance of good it conceals its true character, bearing the name of Christ before it, and making many believe that under the single name of Mass is comprehended the whole sum of faith.

But when it shall have been most clearly proved by the word of God, that this mass, however glossed and splendid, offers the greatest insult to Christ, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death was retained, will its roots be so deep that this most powerful axe, the word of God, will not cut it down and destroy it? Will any semblance be so specious that this light will not expose the lurking evil?

2. The Mass as blasphemy against Christ

Let us show, therefore as was proposed in the first place, that in the mass intolerable blasphemy and insult are offered to Christ. For he was not appointed Priest and Pontiff by the Fathers for a time merely, as priests were appointed under the Old Testament. Since their life was mortal, their priesthood could not be immortal, and hence there was need of successors, who might ever and anon be substituted in the room of the dead. But Christ being immortal, had not the least occasion to have a vicar substituted for him. Wherefore he was appointed by his Father a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek, that he might eternally exercise a permanent priesthood (Heb. 5:6,10; 7:17,21; 9:11; 10:21; Ps. 110:4; Gen. 14:18). This mystery had been typified long before in Melchizedek, whom Scripture, after once introducing as the priest of the living God, never afterwards mentions, as if he had had no end of life. In this way Christ is said to be a priest after his order.

But those who sacrifice daily must necessarily give the charge of their oblations to priests, whom they surrogate as the vicars and successors of Christ. By this subrogation they not only rob Christ of his honour, and take from him the prerogative of an eternal priesthood, but attempt to remove him from the right hand of his Father, where he cannot sit immortal without being an eternal priest. Nor let them allege that their priestlings are not substituted for Christ, as if he were dead, but are only substitutes in that eternal priesthood, which therefore ceases not to exist. The words of the apostle are too stringent to leave them any means of evasion, viz., "They truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever, has an unchangeable priesthood," (Heb. 7: 23, 24.) Yet such is their dishonesty, that to defend their impiety they arm themselves with the example of Melchizedek. As he is said to have "brought forth (obtulisse) bread and wine," (Gen. 14: 18,) they infer that it was a prelude to their mass, as if there was any resemblance between him and Christ in the offering of bread and wine. This is too silly and frivolous to need refutation. Melchizedek gave bread and wine to Abraham and his companions, that he might refresh them when worn out with the march and the battle. What has this to do with sacrifice? The humanity of the holy king is praised by Moses: these men absurdly coin a mystery of which there is no mention. They, however, put another gloss upon their error, because it is immediately added, he was "priest of the most high God." I answer, that they erroneously wrest to bread and wine what the apostle refers to blessing. "This Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham," "and blessed him." Hence the same apostle (and a better interpreter cannot be desired) infers his excellence. "Without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better." But if the oblation of Melchizedek was a figure of the sacrifice of the mass, I ask, would the apostle, who goes into the minutes details, have forgotten a matter so grave and serious? Now, however they quibble, it is in vain for them to attempt to destroy the argument which is adduced by the apostle himself viz., that the right and honour of the priesthood has ceased among mortal men, because Christ, who is immortal, is the one perpetual priest (Heb. 7:17-19).

3. The Mass as suppression of Christ's Passion

Another iniquity chargeable on the mass is, that it sinks and buries the cross and passion of Christ. This much, indeed, is most certain, - the cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an altar is erected. For if, on the cross, he offered himself in sacrifice that he might sanctify us for ever, and purchase eternal redemption for us (Heb. 9:12), undoubtedly the power and efficacy of his sacrifice continues without end. Otherwise, we should not think more honourably of Christ than of the oxen and calves which were sacrificed under the law, the offering of which is proved to have been weak and inefficacious because often repeated. Wherefore, it must be admitted, either that the sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross wanted the power of eternal cleansing, or that he performed this once for ever by his one sacrifice. Accordingly, the apostle says, "Now once in the end of the world has he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Again: "By the which act we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Heb. 10:10). Again: "For by one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Heb. 10:14). To this he subjoins the celebrated passage: "Now, where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." (Heb. 10:18; cf. v.26). The same thing Christ intimated by his latest voice, when, on giving up the ghost, he exclaimed, "It is finished." (John 19:30). We are accustomed to observe the last words of the dying as oracular. Christ, when dying, declares, that by his one sacrifice is perfected and fulfilled whatever was necessary to our salvation. To such a sacrifice, whose perfection he so clearly declared, shall we, as if it were imperfect, presume daily to append innumerable sacrifices? Since the sacred word of God not only affirms, but proclaims and protests, that this sacrifice was once accomplished, and remains eternally in force, do not those who demand another charge it with imperfection and weakness? But to what tends the mass which has been established, that a hundred thousand sacrifices may be performed every day, but just to bury and suppress the passion of our Lord, in which he offered himself to his Father as the only victim? Who but a blind man does not see that it was Satanic audacity to oppose a truth so clear and transparent? I am not unaware of the impostures by which the father of lies is wont to cloak his frauds viz., that the sacrifices are not different or various, but that the one sacrifice is repeated. Such smoke is easily dispersed. The apostle, during his whole discourse, contends not only that there are no other sacrifices, but that that one was once offered, and is no more to be repeated. The more subtle try to make their escape by a still narrower loophole, viz., that it is not repetition, but application. But there is no more difficulty in confuting this sophism also. For Christ did not offer himself once, in the view that his sacrifice should be daily ratified by new oblations, but that by the preaching of the gospel and the dispensation of the sacred Supper, the benefit of it should be communicated to us. Thus Paul says, that "Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us," and bids us "keep the feast," (1 Cor. 5: 7, 8.) The method, I say, in which the cross of Christ is duly applied to us is when the enjoyment is communicated to us, and we receive it with true faith.

4. The argument from Malachi 1:11

But it is worth while to hear on what other foundation besides they rear up their sacrifice of the mass. To this end they drag in the prophecy of Malachi, in which the Lord promises that "in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering," (Mal. 1: 11.) As if it were new or unusual for the prophets, when they speak of the calling of the Gentiles, to designate the spiritual worship of God to which they call them, by the external rites of the law, more familiarly to intimate to the men of their age that they were to be called into the true fellowship of religion, just as in general they are wont to describe the truth which has been exhibited by the gospel by the types of their own age. Thus they use going up to Jerusalem for conversion to the Lord, the bringing of all kinds of gifts for the adoration of God - dreams and visions for the more ample knowledge with which believers were to he endued in the kingdom of Christ. The passage they quote from Malachi resembles one in Isaiah, in which the prophet speaks of three altars to be erected in Assyria, Egypt, and Judea. First, I ask, whether or not they grant that this prophecy is fulfilled in the kingdom of Christ? Secondly, Where are those altars, or when were they ever erected? Thirdly, Do they suppose that a single temple is destined for a single kingdom, as was that of Jerusalem? If they ponder these things, they will confess I think, that the prophets under types adapted to his age, prophesied concerning the propagation of the spiritual worship of God over the whole world. This is the answer which we give them; but, as obvious examples everywhere occur in the Scripture, I am not anxious to give a longer enumeration; although they are miserably deluded in this also, that they acknowledge no sacrifice but that of the mass, whereas in truth believers now sacrifice to God and offer him a pure offering, of which we shall speak by and by.

5. The Mass brings forgetfulness of Christ's death

I now come to the third part of the mass, in regard to which, we are to explain how it obliterates the true and only death of Christ, and drives it from the memory of men. For as among men, the confirmation of a testament depends upon the death of the testator, so also the testament by which he has bequeathed to us remission of sins and eternal righteousness (Heb. 9:15-17), our Lord has confirmed by his death. Those who dare to make any change or innovation on this testament deny his death, and hold it as of no moment. Now, what is the mass but a new and altogether different testament? What? Does not each mass promise a new forgiveness of sins, a new purchase of righteousness so that now there are as many testaments as there are masses? Therefore, let Christ come again, and, by another death, make this new testament; or rather, by innumerable deaths, ratify the innumerable testaments of the mass. Said I not true, then, at the outset, that the only true death of Christ is obliterated by the mass? For what is the direct aim of the mass but just to put Christ again to death, if that were possible? For, as the apostle says, "Where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator," (Heb. 9: 16.) The novelty of the mass bears, on the face of it, to be a testament of Christ, and therefore demands his death. Besides, it is necessary that the victim which is offered be slain and immolated. If Christ is sacrificed at each mass, he must be cruelly slain every moment in a thousand places. This is not my argument, but the apostle's: "Nor yet that he should offer himself often;" "for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world," (Heb. 9: 25, 26.) I admit that they are ready with an answer, by which they even charge us with calumny; for they say that we object to them what they never thought, and could not even think. We know that the life and death of Christ are not at all in their hand. Whether they mean to slay him, we regard not: our intention is only to show the absurdity consequent on their impious and accursed dogma. This I demonstrate from the mouth of the apostle. Though they insist a hundred times that this sacrifice is bloodless, ("anaimakton",) I will reply, that it depends not on the will of man to change the nature of sacrifice, for in this way the sacred and inviolable institution of God would fall. Hence it follows, that the principle of the apostle stands firm, "without shedding of blood is no remission," (Heb. 9: 22.)

6. The Mass robs us of the benefit of Christ's death

The fourth property of the mass which we are to consider is, that it robs us of the benefit which redounded to us from the death of Christ, while it prevents us from recognising it and thinking of it. For who can think that he has been redeemed by the death of Christ when he sees a new redemption in the mass? Who can feel confident that his sins have been remitted when he sees a new remission? It will not do to say that the only ground on which we obtain forgiveness of sins in the mass is, because it has been already purchased by the death of Christ. For this is just equivalent to saying that we are redeemed by Christ on the condition that we redeem ourselves. For the doctrine which is disseminated by the ministers of Satan, and which, in the present day, they defend by clamour, fire, and sword, is, that when we offer Christ to the Father in the mass, we, by this work of oblation, obtain remission of sins, and become partakers of the sufferings of Christ. What is now left for the sufferings of Christ, but to be an example of redemption, that we may thereby learn to be our own redeemers? Christ himself when he seals our assurance of pardon in the Supper, does not bid his disciples stop short at that act, but sends them to the sacrifice of his death; intimating, that the Supper is the memento or, as it is commonly expressed, the memorial from which they may learn that the expiatory victim by which God was to be appeased was to be offered only once. For it is not sufficient to hold that Christ is the only victim, without adding that his is the only immolation, in order that our faith may be fixed to his cross.

7. The Mass as nullification of the Lord's Supper

I come now to the crowning point, viz., that the sacred Supper, on which the Lord left the memorial of his passion formed and engraved, was taken away, hidden and destroyed when the mass was erected. While the Supper itself is a gift of God, which was to be received with thanksgiving, the sacrifice of the mass pretends to give a price to God to be received as satisfaction. As widely as giving differs from receiving, does sacrifice differ from the sacrament of the Supper. But herein does the wretched ingratitude of man appear, - that wile a the liberality of the divine goodness ought to have been recognised, and thanks returned, he makes God to be his debtor. The sacrament promised that by the death of Christ we were not only restored to life once but constantly quickened, because all the parts of our salvation were then completed. The sacrifice of the mass uses a very different language, viz., that Christ must be sacrificed daily, in order that he may lend something to us. The Supper was to be dispensed at the public meeting of the Church, to remind us of the communion by which we are all united in Christ Jesus. This communion the sacrifice of the mass dissolves, and tears asunder. For after the heresy prevailed that there behaved to be priests to sacrifice for the people, as if the Supper had been handed over to them, it ceased to be communicated to the assembly of the faithful according to the command of the Lord. Entrance has been given to private masses, which more resemble a kind of excommunication than that communion ordained by the Lord, when the priestling, about to devour his victim apart, separates himself from the whole body of the faithful. That there may be no mistake, I call it a private mass whenever there is no partaking of the Lord's Supper among believers, though, at the same time, a great multitude of persons may be present.

(Early practice and the rise of misconceptions, 8-11)
8. Private masses a repudiation of communion

The origin of the name of Mass I have never been able certainly to ascertain. It seems probable that it was derived from the offerings which were collected. Hence the ancients usually speak of it in the plural number. But without raising any controversy as to the name, I hold that private masses are diametrically opposed to the institution at Christ, and are, therefore, an impious profanation of the sacred Supper. For what did the Lord enjoin? Was it not to take and divide amongst ourselves (Luke 22:17)? What does Paul teach as to the observance of this command? Is it not that the breaking of bread is the communion of body and blood? (1 Cor. 10: 16.) Therefore, when one person takes without distributing, where is the resemblance? But that one acts in the name of the whole Church. By what command? Is it not openly to mock God when one privately seizes for himself what ought to have been distributed among a number? But as the words both of our Saviour and of Paul, are sufficiently clear, we must briefly conclude, that wherever there is no breaking of bread for the communion of the faithful, there is no Supper of the Lord, but a false and preposterous imitation at the Supper. But false imitation is adulteration. Moreover, the adulteration of this high ordinance is not without impiety. In private masses, therefore, there is an impious abuse: and as in religion, one fault ever and anon begets another, after that custom of offering without communion once crept in, they began gradually to make innumerable masses in all the separate corners of the churches, and to draw the people hither and thither, when they ought to have formed one meeting, and thus recognised the mystery of their unity. Let them now go and deny their idolatry when they exhibit the bread in their masses, that it may be adored for Christ. In vain do they talk of those promises of the presence of Christ, which, however they may be understood, were certainly not given that impure and profane men might form the body of Christ as often as they please, and for whatever abuse they please; but that believers, while, with religious observance, they follow the command of Christ in celebrating the Supper, might enjoy the true participation of it.

9. The Mass not Scriptural and not primitive

We may add, that this perverse course was unknown to the purer Church. For however the more impudent among our opponents may attempt to gloss the matter, it is absolutely certain that all antiquity is opposed to them, as has been above demonstrated in other instances, and may be more surely known by the diligent reading of the Fathers. But before I conclude, I ask our missal doctors, seeing they know that obedience is better than sacrifice, and God commands us to listen to his voice rather than to offer sacrifice, (1 Sam. 15: 22,) - how they can believe this method of sacrificing to be pleasing, to God, since it is certain that he does not command it, and they cannot support it by one syllable of Scripture? Besides, when they hear the apostle declaring that "no man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron," so also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest, but he that said unto him, "Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee," (Heb. 5: 4, 5.) They must either prove God to be the author and founder of their priesthood, or confess that there is no honour from God in an office, into which, without being called, they have rushed with wicked temerity. They cannot produce one iota of Scripture in support of their priesthood. And must not the sacrifices be vain, since they cannot be offered without a priest?

10. Did the church fathers look upon the Mass as a sacrifice?

Should any one here obtrude concise sentences of the ancients, and contend, on their authority, that the sacrifice which is performed in the Supper is to be understood differently from what we have explained it, let this be our brief reply, - that if the question relates to the approval of the fiction of sacrifice, as imagined by Papists in the mass, there is nothing in the Fathers to countenance the sacrilege. They indeed use the term sacrifice, but they, at the same time, explain that they mean nothing more than the commemoration of that one true sacrifice which Christ, our only sacrifice, (as they themselves everywhere proclaim,) performed on the cross. "The Hebrews," says Augustine, (Cont. Faust. Lib. 20 c, 18,) "in the victims of beasts which they offered to God, celebrated the prediction of the future victim which Christ offered: Christians now celebrate the commemoration of a finished sacrifice by the sacred oblation and participation of the body of Christ." Here he certainly teaches the same doctrine which is delivered at greater length in the book Concerning Faith to Peter the Deacon, whoever may have been the author. The words are, "Hold most firmly and have no doubt at all, that the Only Begotten became incarnate for us, that he offered himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour; to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the time of the Old Testament, animals were sacrificed, and to whom now, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, (with whom there is one Godhead,) the holy Church, throughout the whole world, ceases not to offer the sacrifice of bread and wine. For, in those carnal victims, there was a typifying of the flesh of Christ, which he himself was to offer for our sins, and of the blood which he was to shed for the forgiveness of sins. But in that sacrifice there is thanksgiving and commemoration of the flesh of Christ which he offered for us, and of the blood which he shed for us." Hence Augustine himself, in several passages, (Ep. 120, ad Honorat. Cont. Advers. Legis.,) explains, that it is nothing else than a sacrifice of praise. In short, you will find in his writings, passim, that the only reason for which the Lord's Supper is called a sacrifice is, because it is a commemoration, an image, a testimonial of that singular, true, and only sacrifice by which Christ expiated our guilt. For there is a memorable passage, (De Trinitate, Lib. 4 c. 24, {On the Trinity}) where, after discoursing of the only sacrifice, he thus concludes: "Since, in a sacrifice, four things are considered, viz., to whom it is offered, by whom, what and for whom, the same one true Mediator, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, remains one with him to whom he offered, made himself one with those for whom he offered, is himself the one who offered, and the one thing which he offered." Chrysostom speaks to the same effect. They so strongly claim the honour of the priesthood for Christ alone, that Augustine declares it would be equivalent to Antichrist for any one to make a bishop to be an intercessor between God and man, (August. Cont. Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 8.)

11. Church fathers deviate from the divine institution

And yet we deny not that in the Supper the sacrifice of Christ is so vividly exhibited as almost to set the spectacle of the cross before our eyes, just as the apostle says to the Galatians, that Jesus Christ had been evidently set forth before their eyes, when the preaching of the crossway delivered to them, (Gal. 3: 1.) But because I see that those ancient writers have wrested this commemoration to a different purpose than was accordant to the divine institution, (the Supper somehow seemed to them to present the appearance of a repeated or at least renewed, immolation,) nothing can be safer for the pious than to rest satisfied with the pure and simple ordinance of God, whose Supper it is said to be just because his authority alone ought to appear in it. Seeing that they retained a pious and orthodoxy view of the whole ordinance, and I cannot discover that they wished to derogate in the least from the one sacrifice of the Lord, I cannot charge them with any impiety, and yet I think they cannot be excused from having erred somewhat in the mode of action. They imitated the Jewish mode of sacrificing more closely than either Christ had ordained, or the nature of the gospel allowed. The only thing, therefore for which they may be justly censured is, that preposterous analogy, that, not contented with the simple and genuine institution of Christ, they declined too much to the shadows of the law.

(The idea of sacrifice in the Eucharist, and Scriptural use of the word "sacrifice"; the Mass a sacrilege, 12-18)
12. The oblation of the Old Covenant and the Lord's Supper

Any who will diligently consider, will perceive that the word of the Lord makes this distinction between the Mosaic sacrifices and our eucharist - that while the former represented to the Jewish people the same efficacy of the death of Christ which is now exhibited to us, in the Supper (Lev. 1:5), yet the form of representation was different. There the Levitical priests were ordered to typify the sacrifice which Christ was to accomplish; a victim was placed to act as a substitute for Christ himself; an altar was erected on which it was to be sacrificed; the whole, in short, was so conducted as to bring under the eye an image of the sacrifice which was to be offered to God in expiation. But now that the sacrifice has been performed, the Lord has prescribed a different method to us, viz., to transmit the benefit of the sacrifice offered to him by his Son to his believing people, The Lord, therefore, has given us a table at which we may feast, not an altar on which a victim may be offered; he has not consecrated priests to sacrifice, but ministers to distribute a sacred feast. The more sublime and holy this mystery is the more religiously and reverently ought it to be treated. Nothing, therefore, is, safer than to banish all the boldness of human sense, and adhere solely to what Scripture delivers. And certainly, if we reflect that it is the Supper of the Lord and not of men, why do we allow ourselves to be turned aside one nail's-breadth from Scripture by any authority of man, or length of prescription? Accordingly, the apostle, in desiring completely to remove the vices which had crept into the Church of Corinth, as the most expeditious method recalls them to the institution itself, showing that thence a perpetual rule ought to be derived (I Cor. 11:20f).

13. The nature of sacrifice

Lest any quarrelsome person should raise a dispute with us as to the terms, "sacrifice" and "priest", I will briefly explain what in the whole of this discussion we mean by "sacrifice", and what by "priest".

Some, on what rational ground I see not, extend the term sacrifice to all sacred ceremonies and religious acts.

We know that by the uniform use of Scripture, the name of sacrifice is given to what the Greeks call at one time "thusia", at another "prosfora", at another "telete". This, in its general acceptation, includes everything whatever that is offered to God. Wherefore, we ought to distinguish, but so that the distinction may derive its analogy from the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, under whose shadows the Lord was pleased to represent to his people the whole reality of sacrifices. Though these were various in form, they may all be referred to two classes. For either an oblation for sin was made by a certain species of satisfaction, by which the penalty was redeemed before God, or it was a symbol and attestation of religion and divine worship, at one time in the way of supplication to demand the favour of God; at another, by way of thanksgiving, to testify gratitude to God for benefits received; at another as a simple exercise of piety to renew the sanction of the covenant, to which latter branch, burnt-offerings, and libations, oblations, first fruits, and peace-offerings, referred.

Hence, let us also distribute them into two classes. The other class, with the view of explaining, let us call "latreutikon", and "sebastikon", as consisting of the veneration and worship which believers both owe and render to God; or, if you prefer it, let us call it "eucharistikon", since it is exhibited to God by none but those who, enriched with his boundless benefits, offer themselves and all their actions to him in return.

The other class let us call propitiatory or expiatory. A sacrifice of expiation is one whose object is to appease the wrath of God, to satisfy his justice, and thereby wipe and wash away the sins, by which the sinner being cleansed and restored to purity, may return to favour with God. Hence the name which was given in the Law to the victims which were offered in expiation of sin, (Exod. 29: 36;) not that they were adequate to regain the favour of God, and wipe away guilt, but because they typified the true sacrifice of this nature, which was at length performed in reality by Christ alone; by him alone, because no other could, and once, because the efficacy and power of the one sacrifice performed by Christ is eternal, as he declared by his voice, when he said, "It is finished;" that is, that everything necessary to regain the favour of the Father, to procure forgiveness of sins, righteousness and salvation, that all this was performed and consummated by his one oblation, and that hence nothing was wanting. No place was left for another sacrifice.

14. The sale of masses

Wherefore, I conclude, that it is an abominable insult and intolerable blasphemy, as well against Christ as the sacrifice, which, by his death, he performed for us on the cross, for any one to think of repeating the oblation, of purchasing the forgiveness of sins, of propitiating God, and obtaining justification. But what else is done in the Mass than to make us partakers of the sufferings of Christ by means of a new oblation? And that there might be no limit to their extravagance, they have deemed it little to say, that it properly becomes a common sacrifice for the whole Church, without adding, that it is at their pleasure to apply it specially to this one or that, as they choose; or rather, to any one who is willing to purchase their merchandise from them for a price paid. Moreover, as they could not come up to the estimate of Judas, still, that they might in some way refer to their author, they make the resemblance to consist in the member. He sold for thirty pieces of silver: they, according to the French method of computation, sell for thirty pieces of brass. He did it once: they as often as a purchaser is met with.

We deny that they are priests in this sense, namely, that by such oblations they intercede with God for the people, that by propitiating God they make expiation for sins. Christ is the only Pontiff and Priest of the New Testament (cf. Heb. ch.9): to him all priestly offices were transferred, and in him they closed and terminated. Even had Scripture made no mention of the eternal priesthood of Christ, yet, as God, after abolishing those ancient sacrifices, appointed no new priest, the argument of the apostle remains invincible, "No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron," (Heb. 5: 4.) How, then, can those sacrilegious men, who by their own account are murderers of Christ, dare to call themselves the priests of the living God?

15. Plato's remarks on similar pretense and delusion

There is a most elegant passage in the second book of Plato's Republic. Speaking of ancient expiations, and deriding the foolish confidence of wicked and iniquitous men, who thought that by them, as a kind of veils, they concealed their crimes from the gods; and, as if they had made a paction with the gods, indulged themselves more securely, he seems accurately to describe the use of the expiation of the mass, as it exists in the world in the present day. All know that it is unlawful to defraud and circumvent another. To do injustice to widows, to pillage pupils, to molest the poor, to seize the goods of others by wicked arts, to get possession of any mans succession by fraud and perjury, to oppress by violence and tyrannical terror, all admit to be impious. How then do so many, as if assured of impunity, dare to do all those things? Undoubtedly, if we duly consider, we will find that the only thing which gives them so much courage is, that by the sacrifice of the mass as a price paid, they trust that they will satisfy God, or at least will easily find a means of transacting with him.

Plato next proceeds to deride the gross stupidity of those who think by such expiations to redeem the punishments which they must otherwise suffer after death. And what is meant by anniversaries and the greater part of masses in the present day, but just that those who through life have been the most cruel tyrants, or most rapacious plunderers or adepts in all kinds of wickedness, may, as if redeemed at this price, escape the fire of purgatory?

16. The "thank offering" of the Christian church

Under the other kind of sacrifice, which we have called eucharistic, are included all the offices of charity, by which, while we embrace our brethren, we honour the Lord himself in his members; in fine, all our prayers, praises, thanksgivings, and every act of worship which we perform to God. All these depend on the greater sacrifice with which we dedicate ourselves, soul and body, to be a holy temple to the Lord (I Cor. 3:16). For it is not enough that our external acts be framed to obedience, but we must dedicate and consecrate first ourselves, and, secondly, all that we have, so that all which is in us may be subservient to his glory, and be stirred up to magnify it.

This kind of sacrifice has nothing to do with appeasing God, with obtaining remission of sins, with procuring justification, but is wholly employed in magnifying and extolling God, since it cannot be grateful and acceptable to God unless at the hand of those who, having received forgiveness of sins, have already been reconciled and freed from guilt.

This is so necessary to the Church, that it cannot be dispensed with. Therefore, it will endure for ever, so long as the people of God shall endure, as we have already seen above from the prophet. For in this sense we may understand the prophecy, "From the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts," (Malachi 1: 11;) so far are we from doing away with this sacrifice. Thus Paul beseeches us, by the mercies of God, to present our bodies "a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God," our "reasonable service," (Rom. 12: 1; cf. I Peter 2:5-6). Here he speaks very significantly when he adds, that this service is reasonable, for he refers to the spiritual mode of worshipping God, and tacitly opposes it to the carnal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. Thus to do good and communicate are called sacrifices with which God is well-pleased, (Heb. 13: 16.) Thus the kindness of the Philippians in relieving Paul's want is called "an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God," (Phil. 4: 18;) and thus all the good works of believers are called spiritual sacrifices.

17. Scriptural phrases illustrate the sacrifices of praise

And why do I enumerate? This form of expression is constantly occurring in Scripture. Nay, even while the people of God were kept under the external tutelage of the law, the prophets clearly expressed that under these carnal sacrifices there was a reality which is common both to the Jewish people and the Christian Church. For this reason David prayed, "Let my prayer ascend forth before thee as incense," (Psalm 141: 2.) And Hosea gives the name of "calves of the lips" (Hos. 14: 3) to thanksgivings, which David elsewhere calls "sacrifices of praise;" the apostle imitating him, speaks of offering "the sacrifice of praise," which he explains to mean, "the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name," (Heb. 13: 15.) This kind of sacrifice is indispensable in the Lord's Supper, in which, while we show forth his death, and give him thanks, we offer nothing but the sacrifice of praise. From this office of sacrificing, all Christians are called "a royal priesthood," because by Christ we offer that sacrifice of praise of which the apostle speaks, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name, (1 Peter 2: 9; Heb. 13: 15.) We do not appear with our gifts in the presence of God without an intercessor. Christ, our Mediator, by whose intervention we offer ourselves and our all to the Father; he is our High Priest, who, having entered into the upper sanctuary, opens up an access for us; he the altar on which we lay our gifts, that whatever we do attempts we may attempt in him; he it is, I say, who "has made us kings and priests unto God and his Father," (Rev. 1: 6.)

18. The Mass itself, apart from its profanation, is sacrilege

What remains but for the blind to see, the deaf to hear, children even to perceive this abomination of the mass, which, held forth in a golden cup, has so intoxicated all the kings and nations of the earth, from the highest to the lowest; so struck them with stupor and giddiness, that, duller than the lower animals, they have placed the vessel of their salvation in this fatal vortex. Certainly Satan never employed a more powerful engine to assail and storm the kingdom of Christ. This is the Helen for whom the enemies of the truth in the present day fight with so much rage, fury, and atrocity; and truly the Helen with whom they commit spiritual whoredom, the most execrable of all. I am not here laying my little finger on those gross abuses by which they might pretend that the purity of their sacred mass is profaned; on the base traffic which they ply; the sordid gain which they make; the rapacity with which they satiate their avarice. I only indicate, and that in few and simple terms, how very sacred the sanctity of the mass is, how well it has for several ages deserved to be admired and held in veneration! It were a greater work to illustrate these great mysteries as they deserve, and I am unwilling to meddle with their obscene impurities, which are daily before the eyes and faces of all, that it may be understood that the mass, taken in the most choice form in which it can be exhibited, without any appendages, teems from head to foot with all kinds of impiety, blasphemy, idolatry, and sacrilege.

(Conclusion of chapters 17 and 18: two Christian sacraments only, 19-20)
19. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only sacraments

My readers have here a compendious view of all that I have thought it of importance to know concerning these two sacraments which have been delivered to the Christian Church, to be used from the beginning of the new dispensation to the end of the world, Baptism being a kind of entrance into the Church, an initiation into the faith, and the Lord's Supper the constant ailment by which Christ spiritually feeds his family of believers. Wherefore, as there is but one God, one faith, one Christ, one Church, which is his body, so Baptism is one, and is not repeated. But the Supper is ever and anon dispensed, to intimate, that those who are once allured into the Church are constantly fed by Christ.

Besides these two, no other has been instituted by God, and no other ought to be recognised by the assembly of the faithful. That sacraments are not to be instituted and set up by the will of men, is easily understood by him who remembers what has been above with sufficient plainness expounded, viz., that the sacraments have been appointed by God to instruct us in his promise, and testify his good-will towards us; and who, moreover, considers, that the Lord has no counsellor, (Isa. 40: 13; Rom. 11: 34;) who can give us any certainty as to his will, or assure us how he is disposed towards us, what he is disposed to give, and what to deny? From this it follows, that no one can set forth a sign which is to be a testimonial of his will, and of some promise. He alone can give the sign, and bear witness to himself. I will express it more briefly perhaps in homelier, but also in clearer terms, - There never can be a sacrament without a promise of salvation. All men collected into one cannot, of themselves give us any promise of salvation. And, therefore, they cannot, of themselves, give out and set up a sacrament.

20. The addition of sacraments not permitted

With these two, therefore, let the Christian Church be contented, and not only not admit or acknowledge any third at present, but not even desire or expect it even until the end of the world.

For though to the Jews were given, besides his ordinary sacraments, others differing somewhat according to the nature of the times, (as the manna (Ex. 16:13; I Cor. 10:3), the water gushing from the rock (Ex. 17:6; I Cor. 10:4), the brazen serpent (Num. 21:8; John 3:14), and the like,) by this variety they were reminded not to stop short at such figures, the state of which could not be durable, but to expect from God something better, to endure without decay and without end.

Our case is very different. To us Christ has been revealed. In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, (Col. 2: 3,) in such richness and abundance, that to ask or hope for any new addition to these treasures is truly to offend God and provoke him against us. It behaves us to hunger after Christ only, to seek him, look to him, learn of him, and learn again, until the arrival of the great day on which the Lord will fully manifest the glory of his kingdom (cf. I Cor. 15:24), and exhibit himself as he is to our admiring eyes (1 John 3: 2.) And, for this reason, this age of ours is designated in Scriptures by the "last hour" (I John 2:18), the "last days" (Heb. 1:2), the "last times" (I Peter 1:20), that no one may deceive himself with the vain expectation of some new doctrine or revelations. Our heavenly Father, who "at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us" by his beloved Son (Heb. 1:1-2), who alone can manifest, and, in fact, has fully manifested, the Father (Luke 10:22), in so far as is of importance to us, while we now see him through a mirror (I Cor. 13:12).

Now since men have been denied the power of making new sacraments in the Church of God, it were to be wished that in those which are of God, there should be the least possible admixture of human invention. For just as when water is infused the wine is diluted and when leaven is put in, the whole mass is leavened, so the purity of the ordinances of God is impaired, whenever man makes any addition of his own.

And yet we see how far the sacraments as at present used have degenerated from their genuine purity. There is everywhere more than enough of pomp, ceremony and gesticulation, while no account is taken or mention made, of the word of God, without which, even the sacraments themselves are not sacraments. Nay, in such a crowd, the very ceremonies ordained by God cannot raise their head, but lie as it were oppressed. In Baptism, as we have elsewhere justly complained, how little is seen of that which alone ought to shine and be conspicuous there, I mean Baptism itself? The Supper was altogether buried when it was turned into the Mass. The utmost is that it is seen once a year, but in a garbled, mutilated, and lacerated form.