Point 11: Of the Sacrifice of the Mass
Touching this point, first I will set down what must be understood by the name Sacrifice. A sacrifice is taken properly or improperly. Properly it is a sacred or solemn action in which man offers and consecrates some outward bodily thing unto God for this end: to please and honor him thereby. Thus all the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the oblation of Christ upon the cross in the New Testament are sacrifices. Improperly — that is, only by way of resemblance — the duties of the moral law are called sacrifices. In handling this question, I understand a sacrifice both properly and improperly by way of resemblance.
Our consent.
Our consent I set down in two conclusions. Conclusion 1. The Supper of the Lord is a sacrifice and may truly be so called as it has been in former ages, and that in three respects. First, because it is a memorial of the real sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, and contains withal a thanksgiving to God for the same — which thanksgiving is the sacrifice and calves of our lips (Hebrews 13:15). Second, because every communicant there presents himself, body and soul, a living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice unto God. For as in this sacrament God gives to us Christ with his benefits, so we answerable give up ourselves to God as servants to walk in the practice of all dutiful obedience. Third, it is called a sacrifice in respect of that which was joined with the sacrament, namely the alms given to the poor as a testimony of our thankfulness to God. In this regard also the ancient fathers called the sacrament an unbloody sacrifice, and the table an altar, and the ministers priests, and the whole action an oblation — not to God but to the congregation, and not by the priest alone but by the people. A canon of a certain council says: We decree that every Lord's Day the oblation of the altar be offered of every man and woman both for bread and wine. Augustine says that women offer a sacrifice at the altar of the Lord, that it might be offered by the priest to God. Commonly in ancient writers the communion of the whole body of the congregation is called the sacrifice or oblation.
Conclusion 2. The very body of Christ is offered in the Lord's Supper. For as we take the bread to be the body of Christ sacramentally by resemblance and no otherwise, so the breaking of bread is sacramentally the sacrificing or offering of Christ upon the cross. Thus the fathers termed the Eucharist an immolation of Christ, because it is a commemoration of his sacrifice upon the cross. Augustine writes: Neither does he lie who says Christ was offered — for if sacraments did not have the resemblance of things of which they are sacraments, they would in no wise be sacraments; but from a resemblance they often take their names. Again, Christ is sacrificed in the Last Supper in regard of the faith of the communicants, which makes a thing past and done as present. Augustine says: When we believe in Christ, he is offered for us daily. And: Christ is then slain for every one, when he believes that he is slain for him. Ambrose says: Christ is sacrificed daily in the minds of believers, as upon an altar. Jerome says: He is always offered to the believers.
The difference.
They make the Eucharist to be a real, external, or bodily sacrifice offered to God, holding and teaching that the minister is a priest properly, and that in this sacrament he offers Christ's body and blood to God the Father really and properly under the forms of bread and wine. We acknowledge no real, outward, or bodily sacrifice for the remission of sins, but only Christ's oblation on the cross once offered. Here is the main difference between us touching this point, and it is of such weight and moment that they stiffly maintaining their opinion (as they do) can be no Church of God. For this point razes the foundation to the very bottom. That it may the better appear that we hold the truth, first I will confirm our doctrine by Scripture, and secondly confute the reasons which they bring for themselves.
Our reasons.
Reason 1. Hebrews 9:15, 26 and 10:10: The Holy Spirit says Christ offered himself but once. Therefore not often — and thus there can be no real or bodily offering of his body and blood in the sacrament of his Supper. The text is plain. The Papists answer: The sacrifice of Christ is one for substance, yet in regard of the manner of offering it is either bloody or unbloody, and the Holy Spirit speaks only of the bloody sacrifice of Christ, which was indeed offered but once. Answer: The author of this epistle takes it for granted that the sacrifice of Christ is only one, and that the bloody sacrifice. For he says in Hebrews 9:25: Christ did not offer himself often, as the high priests did. And verse 26: Then he must have often suffered since the foundation of the world, but now in the end he has appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And verse 22: Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. By these words it is plain that Scripture never knew the twofold manner of sacrificing of Christ. And every distinction in divinity not founded in the written word is but a fabrication of man's brain. And if this distinction be good, how shall the reason of the Apostle stand? — He did not offer himself but once, because he suffered but once.
Reason 2. The Roman Church holds that the sacrifice in the Lord's Supper is all one for substance with the sacrifice which he offered on the cross. If that be so, then the sacrifice in the Eucharist must either be a continuation of that sacrifice which was begun on the cross, or else an iteration or repetition of it. Now let them choose of these two which they will. If they say it is a continuation of the sacrifice on the cross, Christ being but the beginner and the priest the finisher thereof, they make it imperfect — for to continue a thing till it is accomplished is to bring perfection to it, but Christ's sacrifice on the cross was then fully perfected, as by his own testimony appears when he said: It is finished. Again, if they say it is a repetition of Christ's sacrifice, thus also they make it imperfect — for that is the very reason which the Holy Spirit uses to prove that the sacrifices of the Old Testament were imperfect: because they were repeated.
Reason 3. A real and outward sacrifice in a sacrament is against the nature of a sacrament, and especially the Supper of the Lord, for one end thereof is to keep in memory the sacrifice of Christ. Now every remembrance must be of a thing absent, past, and done. And if Christ is daily and really sacrificed, the sacrament is no fit memorial of his sacrifice. Again, the principal end for which the sacrament was ordained is that God might give and we receive Christ with his benefits, and therefore to give and take, to eat and drink, are here the principal actions. Now in a real sacrifice, God does not give Christ and the priest receive him of God, but contrariwise the priest gives and offers Christ to God and God receives something from us. To help the matter they say that this sacrifice serves not properly to make any satisfaction to God, but rather to apply to us the satisfaction of Christ already made. But this answer still makes against the nature of a sacrament, in which God gives Christ to us, whereas in a sacrifice God receives from man and man gives something to God. A sacrifice therefore is no fit means to apply to us anything that is given of God.
Reason 4. Hebrews 7:24-25: The Holy Spirit makes a difference between Christ the high priest of the New Testament and all Levitical priests in this: that they were many, one succeeding another, but he is only one, having an eternal priesthood which cannot pass from him to any other. Now if this difference be good, then Christ alone in his own very person must be the priest of the New Testament, and no other with or under him. Otherwise in the New Testament there would be more priests in number than in the old. If they say that the whole action remains in the person of Christ and that the priest is but an instrument under him, I say again it is false, because the whole oblation is acted and done by the priest himself, and he who does all is more than a bare instrument.
Reason 5. If the priest does offer to God Christ's real body and blood for the pardon of our sins, then man has become a mediator between God and Christ. Now the Church of Rome says that the priest in his Mass is a priest properly, and his sacrifice a real sacrifice differing only in the manner of offering from the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. In the very Canon of the Mass they insinuate as much, when they request God to accept their gifts and offerings — namely Christ himself offered — as he did the sacrifices of Abel and Noah. Now it is absurd to think that any creature should be a mediator between Christ and God. Therefore Christ cannot possibly be offered by any creature unto God.
Reason 6: The judgment of the ancient Church. A certain council held at Toledo in Spain reproves the ministers who offered sacrifice often the same day without the holy communion. The words of the canon are these: It has been reported to us that certain priests do not so many times receive the grace of the holy communion as they offer sacrifices in one day — in one day, if they offer many sacrifices to God, in all the oblations they suspend themselves from the communion. Here mark that the sacrifices in ancient Masses were nothing else but forms of divine service, because none did communicate, not even the priest himself. And in another council the name of the Mass is put only for a form of prayer: It has pleased us that prayers, supplications, Masses, which shall be approved in the council, be used. In this sense it is taken when speech is used of the making or composing of Masses, for the propitiatory sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ admits no composition. Abbot Paschasius says: Because we sin daily, Christ is sacrificed for us mystically, and his passion is given in mystery. These his words are against the real sacrifice. But he expounds himself more plainly in chapter 10: The blood is drunk in mystery spiritually, and it is all spiritual which we eat. And in chapter 12: The priest distributes to every one not as much as the outward sight gives, but as much as faith receives. And chapter 13: The full resemblance is outwardly, and the immaculate flesh of the lamb is faith inwardly — that the truth be not wanting to the sacrament. And in chapter 6: One eats the flesh of Christ spiritually and drinks his blood; another seems to receive not so much as a morsel of bread from the hand of the priest — his reason being that they came unprepared. Now then, considering that in all these places he makes no receiving but spiritual, neither does he make any sacrifice but spiritual.
Objections of Papists.
Objection 1. Genesis 14:18: When Abraham was coming from the slaughter of the kings, Melchizedek met him and brought forth bread and wine, and he was a priest of the most high God. Now this bread and wine (say they) he brought forth to offer as a sacrifice, because it is said he was a priest of the most high God. And they reason thus: Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, therefore as Melchizedek offered bread and wine, so Christ under the forms of bread and wine offers himself in sacrifice to God. Answer: Melchizedek was no type of Christ in regard of the act of sacrificing, but in regard of his person and things pertaining thereto, which are all fully expounded in Hebrews 7. The sum is this: first, Melchizedek was both king and priest, as was Christ; second, he was a prince of peace and righteousness, as was Christ; third, he had neither father nor mother recorded, because Scripture in setting down his history makes no mention of the beginning or end of his days, and so Christ had neither father nor mother — no father as he was man, no mother as he was God; fourth, Melchizedek being greater than Abraham blessed him, and Christ by virtue of his priesthood blesses, that is, justifies and sanctifies all those that be of the faith of Abraham. In these things only stands the resemblance, and not in the offering of bread and wine. Again, the end of bringing forth the bread and wine was not to make a sacrifice, but to refresh Abraham and his servants who came from the slaughter of the kings. And he is called here a priest of the most high God not in regard of any sacrifice, but in consideration of his blessing of Abraham, as the order of the words teaches: And he was the priest of the most high God, and therefore he blessed him. Thirdly, though it were granted that he brought forth bread and wine to offer in sacrifice, yet it would not follow that in the sacrament Christ himself is to be offered to God under the naked forms of bread and wine. Melchizedek's bread and wine would be absurd types of no-bread and no-wine, or of mere forms of bread and wine in the sacrament.
Objection 2. The Passover lamb was both a sacrifice and a sacrament, and the Eucharist comes in place thereof. Answer: The Passover lamb was a sacrament but no sacrifice. Indeed Christ says to his disciples: Go and prepare a place to sacrifice the Passover (Mark 14:12), but the words to offer or to sacrifice often signify no more than to kill. As when Jacob and Laban made a covenant, it is said Jacob sacrificed beasts and called his brethren to eat bread (Genesis 31:54), which words must not be understood of killing for sacrifice but of killing for a feast. Again, when Saul sought his father's asses and asked for the seer, a maiden bids him go up quickly, for there is an offering of the people today in the high place (1 Samuel 9:12) — where the feast kept in Ramah is called a sacrifice, in all likelihood because at the beginning thereof the priest offered a sacrifice to God. So the Passover may be called a sacrifice because sacrifices were offered within the compass of the appointed feast, and yet the thing itself was no more a sacrifice than the feast in Ramah was. Again, if it were granted that the Passover was both, it would not make much against us, for the Supper of the Lord succeeds the Passover only in regard of the main end thereof, which is the increase of our communion with Christ.
Objection 3. Malachi 1:11: The prophet foretells of a clean sacrifice that shall be in the New Testament, and that (say they) is the sacrifice of the Mass. Answer: This place must be understood of a spiritual sacrifice, as we shall plainly perceive if we compare it with 1 Timothy 2:8, where the meaning of the prophet is fitly expounded. I will (says Paul) that men pray in all places, lifting up pure hands without wrath or doubting. And this is the clean sacrifice of the Gentiles. Justin Martyr says that supplications and thanksgivings are the only perfect sacrifices pleasing God, and that Christians have learned to offer them alone. Tertullian says: We sacrifice for the health of the emperor, as God has commanded, with pure prayer. Irenaeus says that this clean offering to be offered in every place is the prayers of the saints.
Objection 4. Hebrews 13:10: We have an altar, of which they may not eat who serve in the tabernacle. Now (say they) if we have an altar, then we must needs have a priest and also a real sacrifice. Answer: Here is meant not a bodily but a spiritual altar, because the altar is opposed to the material Tabernacle. What is meant thereby is expressed in the next verse, in which he proves that we have an altar: The bodies of the beasts, whose blood was brought into the holy place by the high priest for sin, were burned outside the camp — so Christ Jesus, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered outside the gate. Now lay the proof to the thing proved, and we must needs understand Christ himself, who was both the altar, the priest, and the sacrifice.
Objection 5. Lastly, they say: where there is alteration both of law and covenant, there must needs be a new priest and a new sacrifice. But in the New Testament there is alteration both of law and covenant, and therefore there is both new priest and new sacrifice. Answer: All may be granted — in the New Testament there is both new priest and sacrifice, yet not any Popish priest, but only Christ himself both God and man. The sacrifice also is Christ as he is man, and the altar is Christ as he is God, who in the New Testament offered himself a sacrifice to his Father for the sins of the world. For though he was the Lamb of God slain from the beginning of the world in regard of the purpose of God, in regard of the value of his merit, and in regard of faith which makes things to come as present, yet was he not actually offered until the fullness of time came. And once offering himself, he remains a priest forever, and all other priests beside him are superfluous, his one offering once offered being all-sufficient.
On this point, I will first explain what is meant by the word 'sacrifice.' A sacrifice may be understood in the proper or improper sense. In the proper sense, it is a solemn and sacred action in which a person offers and consecrates some outward, physical thing to God in order to honor and please Him. In this sense, all the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the offering of Christ on the cross in the New Testament are sacrifices. In the improper sense — that is, only by way of resemblance — the duties of the moral law are also called sacrifices. In addressing this question, I will use the word 'sacrifice' in both its proper sense and in the improper, figurative sense.
Our consent.
I set out our agreement in two conclusions. Conclusion 1. The Lord's Supper is a sacrifice and may rightly be called one, as it has been called in former ages, for three reasons. First, because it is a memorial of Christ's actual sacrifice on the cross and includes thanksgiving to God for that sacrifice — which thanksgiving is 'the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name' (Hebrews 13:15). Second, because every communicant there presents himself — body and soul — as a living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice to God. Just as God gives Christ and His benefits to us in this sacrament, so in response we give ourselves to God as servants committed to all dutiful obedience. Third, it is called a sacrifice with reference to the giving that was associated with the sacrament — namely, the alms given to the poor as a testimony of our gratitude to God. For these reasons the ancient fathers called the sacrament an unbloody sacrifice, the table an altar, the ministers priests, and the whole act an oblation — offered not to God alone by the priest, but by the whole congregation together. A canon of one council decrees: 'We ordain that every Lord's Day the offering at the altar be brought by every man and woman, both bread and wine.' Augustine says that women bring a sacrifice to the Lord's altar, that it might be offered by the priest to God. In the ancient writers, the communion of the whole congregation is commonly called the sacrifice or oblation.
Conclusion 2. The very body of Christ is offered in the Lord's Supper. Just as we take the bread to be the body of Christ sacramentally — by resemblance and in no other way — so the breaking of bread is sacramentally the sacrificing or offering of Christ on the cross. For this reason the fathers called the Eucharist an immolation of Christ, because it is a commemoration of His sacrifice on the cross. Augustine writes: 'He does not lie who says Christ was offered — for if sacraments did not bear the resemblance of the things of which they are sacraments, they would in no way be sacraments; but from the resemblance they often take their names.' Again, Christ is sacrificed in the Lord's Supper in the sense that the faith of the communicants makes something past and completed present to them. Augustine says: 'When we believe in Christ, He is offered for us daily.' And: 'Christ is then slain for each person when he believes that He was slain for him.' Ambrose says: 'Christ is sacrificed daily in the minds of believers, as upon an altar.' Jerome says: 'He is always being offered to believers.'
The difference.
The Church of Rome makes the Eucharist a real, external, and physical sacrifice offered to God, teaching that the minister is a priest in the proper sense and that in this sacrament he truly and properly offers Christ's body and blood to God the Father under the forms of bread and wine. We acknowledge no real, outward, or bodily sacrifice for the remission of sins — only the one offering of Christ on the cross, made once. This is the main difference between us on this point, and it is of such weight that any church which stubbornly maintains their position on this cannot be a true church of God. This error tears out the very foundation of religion. To show that we hold the truth, I will first confirm our doctrine from Scripture, and then refute their arguments.
Our reasons.
Reason 1. Hebrews 9:15, 26, and 10:10 all state that Christ offered Himself once. Therefore not repeatedly — and thus there can be no real or bodily offering of His body and blood in the sacrament. The text is plain. The papists answer: Christ's sacrifice is one in substance, yet in manner of offering it is either bloody or unbloody, and the Holy Spirit speaks only of the bloody sacrifice, which was offered once. Answer: The author of Hebrews takes it as given that Christ's sacrifice is one, and that it is the bloody sacrifice. He says in Hebrews 9:25: 'Nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.' Verse 26: 'Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.' Verse 22: 'Without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.' These words make plain that Scripture knows nothing of a twofold manner of sacrificing Christ. Any theological distinction not founded in the written word is a human invention. And if this distinction were valid, how would the apostle's argument stand? He says Christ did not offer Himself often — because He suffered only once.
Reason 2. The Roman Church holds that the sacrifice in the Lord's Supper is one in substance with the sacrifice offered on the cross. If that is so, then the sacramental sacrifice must be either a continuation of the sacrifice begun on the cross or a repetition of it. Let them choose one of these two options. If they say it is a continuation — with Christ as the one who began it and the priest as the one who completes it — they make it imperfect. To continue something until it is finished is to bring it to its completion; but Christ's sacrifice on the cross was completely finished, as His own words show: 'It is finished.' If they say it is a repetition, they again make it imperfect — for that is precisely the argument the Holy Spirit uses to prove that the Old Testament sacrifices were imperfect: because they had to be repeated.
Reason 3. A real and outward sacrifice within a sacrament is contrary to the very nature of a sacrament — and especially of the Lord's Supper, one of whose purposes is to keep in memory the sacrifice of Christ. Every act of remembrance is of something absent, past, and completed. If Christ is truly and bodily sacrificed daily, the sacrament is no longer a fitting memorial of His sacrifice. Furthermore, the principal purpose for which the sacrament was ordained is that God might give and we might receive Christ with His benefits. Therefore the giving, receiving, eating, and drinking are the primary actions here. In a real sacrifice, however, God does not give Christ to the priest to receive — rather, the priest gives and offers Christ to God, and God receives something from us. To get around this, they say this sacrifice does not serve to make any satisfaction to God, but only to apply to us the satisfaction Christ already made. But this answer still works against the nature of a sacrament, in which God gives Christ to us — whereas in a sacrifice, a person gives something to God. A sacrifice is therefore no fitting means for God to give anything to us.
Reason 4. In Hebrews 7:24-25, the Holy Spirit distinguishes Christ as the high priest of the New Testament from all the Levitical priests in this way: they were many, each succeeding the other, while He is only one, holding an eternal priesthood that cannot be transferred to any other. If this distinction is valid, then Christ alone — in His own person — must be the priest of the New Testament, with no one alongside Him or under Him. Otherwise, the New Testament would have more priests than the Old. If they reply that the entire priestly action remains in Christ and the minister is merely an instrument under Him, I say again this is false — because the entire offering is performed by the priest himself, and whoever does everything is more than a mere instrument.
Reason 5. If the priest truly offers Christ's real body and blood to God for the pardon of sins, then a human being has become a mediator between God and Christ. The Church of Rome says the priest in the Mass is a priest in the proper sense, and his sacrifice a real sacrifice — differing from Christ's sacrifice on the cross only in the manner of offering. The very Canon of the Mass implies as much, when it asks God to accept their gifts and offerings — namely Christ Himself being offered — just as He accepted the sacrifices of Abel and Noah. But it is absurd to think that any creature could be a mediator between Christ and God. Therefore it is impossible for any creature to offer Christ to God.
Reason 6: The testimony of the ancient Church. A council held at Toledo in Spain rebuked ministers who offered sacrifice multiple times in one day without receiving communion. The canon reads: 'It has been reported to us that certain priests do not receive the grace of holy communion as many times as they offer sacrifices in a single day — that when they offer many sacrifices to God in one day, they abstain from communion in all those oblations.' Note here: in the ancient church, these sacrifices in the Mass were nothing more than forms of divine service, since even the priest himself did not receive communion. Another council uses the word 'Mass' simply for a form of prayer: 'It has pleased us that prayers, supplications, and Masses approved by the council be used.' In this sense, speaking of composing or preparing Masses makes sense — for a propitiatory sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ admits of no such composition. Abbot Paschasius says: 'Because we sin daily, Christ is sacrificed for us mystically, and His passion is given in mystery.' These words argue against any real, physical sacrifice. He explains himself even more plainly in chapter 10: 'The blood is drunk in mystery spiritually, and everything we eat is spiritual.' In chapter 12: 'The priest distributes to each person not as much as the outward appearance offers, but as much as faith receives.' In chapter 13: 'The full resemblance is outward, and the immaculate flesh of the Lamb is inward through faith — so that truth may not be lacking to the sacrament.' In chapter 6: 'One person eats the flesh of Christ spiritually and drinks His blood; another seems to receive not so much as a morsel of bread from the priest's hand' — his reason being that such people came unprepared. In all these passages, Paschasius speaks of no receiving that is not spiritual — and no sacrifice that is not spiritual.
Objections of Papists.
Objection 1. Genesis 14:18: When Abraham was returning from the defeat of the kings, Melchizedek came out to meet him and brought bread and wine, and he was a priest of the Most High God. They argue that Melchizedek brought out this bread and wine to offer as a sacrifice, since he is called a priest of God. They then reason: since Christ was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, just as Melchizedek offered bread and wine, so Christ under the forms of bread and wine offers Himself as a sacrifice to God. Answer: Melchizedek was a type of Christ not with respect to the act of sacrificing, but with respect to his person and the things belonging to it — all of which are fully explained in Hebrews 7. The summary is this: first, Melchizedek was both king and priest, as was Christ; second, he was a ruler of peace and righteousness, as was Christ; third, he had no father or mother recorded, because Scripture in recounting his history mentions neither the beginning nor the end of his days — and correspondingly Christ had no father as man and no mother as God; fourth, Melchizedek, being greater than Abraham, blessed him — and Christ by virtue of His priesthood blesses, that is, justifies and sanctifies, all those who share Abraham's faith. The resemblance lies in these things only — not in the offering of bread and wine. Furthermore, the purpose of bringing out the bread and wine was not to make a sacrifice but to refresh Abraham and his servants after returning from battle. Melchizedek is called a priest of the Most High God here not because of any sacrifice but because of his blessing of Abraham, as the natural order of the words shows: 'And he was the priest of the Most High God, and therefore he blessed him.' Third, even if it were granted that he brought out bread and wine as a sacrifice, it would not follow that in the sacrament Christ Himself is to be offered to God under the bare forms of bread and wine. Melchizedek's bread and wine would then be absurd types of not-bread and not-wine, or of the mere appearances of bread and wine in the sacrament.
Objection 2. The Passover lamb was both a sacrifice and a sacrament, and the Eucharist takes the place of it. Answer: The Passover lamb was a sacrament but not a sacrifice. Christ says to His disciples in Mark 14:12: 'Go and prepare for us to sacrifice the Passover' — but the words 'to sacrifice' or 'to offer' often mean nothing more than 'to kill.' When Jacob and Laban made a covenant, it is said that 'Jacob offered a sacrifice on the mountain and invited his kinsmen to eat the meal' (Genesis 31:54) — here 'sacrifice' simply means killing for a feast, not an offering to God. When Saul was searching for his father's donkeys and asked for the seer, a young woman told him to hurry, 'for there is a sacrifice of the people today at the high place' (1 Samuel 9:12). There the feast at Ramah is called a sacrifice — most likely because a sacrifice was offered to God at its opening. So the Passover may be called a sacrifice because sacrifices were offered during the appointed feast period — yet the Passover meal itself was no more a sacrifice than was the feast at Ramah. And even if it were granted that the Passover was both, it would not substantially help their case — for the Lord's Supper follows from the Passover only in respect of its main purpose, which is the deepening of our communion with Christ.
Objection 3. Malachi 1:11 foretells a pure sacrifice that will be offered in the New Testament era — and that, they say, is the sacrifice of the Mass. Answer: This passage must be understood as referring to a spiritual sacrifice, as becomes clear when compared with 1 Timothy 2:8, where Paul fittingly expounds what the prophet means. Paul says: 'I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.' This is the pure sacrifice of the Gentiles. Justin Martyr says that prayers and thanksgiving are the only perfect sacrifices pleasing to God, and that Christians have been taught to offer these alone. Tertullian says: 'We offer sacrifice for the emperor's health, as God has commanded, with pure prayer.' Irenaeus says that this pure offering, to be made in every place, is the prayers of the saints.
Objection 4. Hebrews 13:10: 'We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.' They argue: if we have an altar, then we must also have a priest and a real sacrifice. Answer: The altar here is not a physical one but a spiritual one — for it is set in contrast with the material tabernacle. What it means is expressed in the very next verse, where the author proves that we have an altar: 'For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy place by the high priest as an offering for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate.' Apply the proof to the thing proved, and we must understand that Christ Himself is both the altar, the priest, and the sacrifice.
Objection 5. Finally, they argue: where both the law and the covenant are changed, there must be both a new priest and a new sacrifice. The New Testament involves a change of both law and covenant — therefore it has both a new priest and a new sacrifice. Answer: All of this may be granted. In the New Testament there is indeed both a new priest and a new sacrifice — but not any Roman priest, only Christ Himself, both God and man. The sacrifice is Christ as He is man; and the altar is Christ as He is God, who in the New Testament offered Himself as a sacrifice to His Father for the sins of the world. Though He was the Lamb of God slain from the beginning of the world — in terms of God's purpose, in terms of the value of His merit, and in terms of faith which makes things future as present — He was not actually offered until the fullness of time came. And having offered Himself once, He remains a priest forever. All other priests beside Him are unnecessary, since His one offering, once made, is entirely sufficient.
