Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
The Papal Mass Not Only A Sacrilegious Profanation Of The Lord’S Supper, But A Total Annihilation Of It - Reading 02
III. A second property of the mass we have stated to be,
that it suppresses and conceals the cross and passion of Christ.
It is beyond all contradiction, that the cross of Christ is subverted
as soon as ever an altar is erected; for if Christ offered
up himself a sacrifice on the cross, to sanctify us for ever, and
to obtain eternal redemption for us, the virtue and efficacy of
that sacrifice must certainly continue without any end.[1331]
Otherwise, we should have no more honourable ideas of Christ,
than of the animal victims which were sacrificed under the
law, the oblations of which are proved to have been weak and
inefficacious, by the circumstance of their frequent repetition.
Wherefore, it must be acknowledged, either that the sacrifice
which Christ accomplished on the cross wanted the virtue of
eternal purification, or that Christ has offered up one perfect
sacrifice, once for all ages. This is what the apostle says
that this great high-priest, even Christ, “now once in the end
of the world, hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself.” Again: “By the will of God we are sanctified,
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all.”
Again: “That by one offering Christ hath perfected for ever
them that are sanctified.” To which he subjoins this remarkable
observation: “That where remission of iniquities is,
there is no more offering for sin.”[1332]
This was likewise
signified by the last words of Christ, when, with his expiring
breath he said, “It is finished.”[1333]
We are accustomed to
consider the last words of dying persons as oracular. Christ,
at the moment of his death, declared that by his own sacrifice
every thing necessary to our salvation had been accomplished
and finished. To such a sacrifice, the perfection of which he
so explicitly declares, shall it be lawful for us to make innumerable
additions every day, as though it were imperfect? While
God’s most holy word not only affirms, but proclaims and
protests, that this sacrifice was once perfect, and that its virtue
is eternal,—do not they who require another sacrifice charge
this with imperfection and inefficacy? But what is the tendency
of the mass, which admits of a hundred thousand sacrifices
being offered every day, except it be to obscure and suppress
the passion of Christ, by which he offered himself as the
alone sacrifice to the Father? Who, that is not blind, does
not see that such an opposition to the clear and manifest truth
must have arisen from the audacity of Satan? I am aware of
the fallacies with which that father of falsehood is accustomed
to varnish over this fraud; as, that these are not various or
different sacrifices, but only a repetition of that one sacrifice.
But such illusions are easily dissipated. For, through the
whole argument, the apostle is contending, not only that there
are no other sacrifices, but that that one sacrifice was offered
once, and is never to be repeated. The more artful sophisters
have recourse to a deeper subterfuge; that the mass is not a
repetition of that sacrifice, but an application of it. This sophistry
also may be confuted, without any more difficulty than the
former. For Christ once offered up himself, not that his sacrifice
might be daily ratified by new oblations, but that the
benefit of it might be communicated to us by the preaching
of the gospel, and the administration of the sacred supper.
Thus Paul says that “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,”
and commands us to feast on him.[1334]
This, I say, is the way
in which the sacrifice of the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is
rightly applied to us, when it is communicated to us for our
enjoyment, and we receive it with true faith.
IV. But it is worth while to hear on what other foundation
they rest the sacrifice of the mass. They apply to this
purpose the prophecy of Malachi, in which the Lord promises,
that “from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of
the same, incense shall be offered unto” his “name, and a pure
offering.”[1335]
As though it were a new or unusual thing for
the prophets, when they speak of the calling of the Gentiles,
to designate the spiritual worship of God, to which they exhort
them, by the external ceremonies of the law; in order to show,
in a more familiar manner, to the men of their own times, that
the Gentiles were to be introduced to a participation of the
true religion; as it is their invariable practice, on all occasions,
to describe the realities which have been exhibited in the
gospel, under the types and figures of the dispensation under
which they lived. Thus, conversion to the Lord they express
by going up to Jerusalem; adoration of God, by oblations of
various gifts; the more extensive knowledge to be bestowed
on believers, in the kingdom of Christ, by dreams and visions.[1336]
The prophecy which they adduce, therefore, is similar to another
prediction of Isaiah, where he foretells the erection of three altars,
in Assyria, Egypt, and Judea.[1337]
I ask the Romanists, first,
whether they do not admit this prediction to have been accomplished
in the kingdom of Christ; secondly, where are these
altars, or when were they ever erected; thirdly, whether they
think that those two kingdoms were destined to have their
respective temples, like that at Jerusalem. A due consideration
of these things, I think, will induce them to acknowledge, that
the prophet, under types adapted to his own time, was predicting
the spiritual worship of God, which was to be propagated
all over the world. This is our solution of the passage
which they adduce from Malachi; but as examples of this
mode of expression are of such frequent occurrence, I shall not
employ myself in a further enumeration of them. Here, also,
they are miserably deceived, in acknowledging no sacrifice but
that of the mass; whereas, believers do in reality now sacrifice
to the Lord, and offer a pure oblation, of which we shall
presently treat.
V. I now proceed to the third view of the mass, under
which I am to show how it obliterates and expunges from the
memory of mankind the true and alone death of Jesus Christ.
For as among men the confirmation of a testament depends on
the death of the testator, so also our Lord, by his death, has
confirmed the testament in which he has given us remission
of sins, and everlasting righteousness. Those who dare to
attempt any variation or innovation in this testament, thereby
deny his death, and represent it as of no value. Now, what is
the mass, but a new and totally different testament? For
does not every separate mass promise a new remission of sins,
and a new acquisition of righteousness; so that there are now
as many testaments as masses? Let Christ, therefore, come
again, and by another death ratify this new testament, or rather,
by innumerable deaths, confirm these innumerable testaments
of masses. Have I not truly said, then, at the beginning, that
the true and alone death of Christ is obliterated and consigned
to oblivion by the masses? And is not the direct tendency
of the mass, to cause Christ, if it were possible, to be put to
death again? “For where a testament is,” says the apostle,
“there must also, of necessity, be the death of the testator.”[1338]
The mass pretends to exhibit a new testament of Christ; therefore
it requires his death. Moreover the victim which is offered
must, of necessity, be slain and immolated. If Christ be
sacrificed in every mass, he must be cruelly murdered in a
thousand separate places at once. This is not my argument;
it is the reasoning of the apostle: “It was not necessary that
he should offer himself often; for then must he often have suffered
since the foundation of the world.”[1339]
In reply to this,
I confess, they are ready to charge us with calumny; alleging
that we impute to them sentiments which they never have
held, nor ever can hold. We know, indeed, that the life and
death of Christ are not in their power; and whether they intend
to murder him, we do not inquire; we only mean to show
the absurdities which follow from their impious and abominable
doctrine, and this we have proved from the mouth of the apostle.
They may reply a hundred times, if they please, that this
sacrifice is without blood; but I shall deny that sacrifices can
change their nature, at the caprice of men; for thus the sacred
and inviolable institution of God would fall to the ground.
Hence it follows, that this principle of the apostle can never
be shaken, that “without shedding of blood is no remission.”[1340]