Chapter 18. Of the Popish Mass, by Which Sacrilege the Supper of Christ Has Not Only Been Profaned, but Also Brought to Nothing

With these and like inventions Satan has travailed, as by overspreading of darkness to obscure and defile the holy Supper of Christ, that at least the pureness of it should not be kept still in the Church. But the head of horrible abomination was, when he advanced a sign, by which it might not only be darkened and perverted, but being utterly blotted and abolished should vanish away and fall out of the remembrance of men: namely when he blinded almost the whole world with a most pestilent error, that they should believe that the Mass is a sacrifice and oblation to obtain the forgiveness of sins. How at the beginning the sounder sort of the Schoolmen took this doctrine, I nothing regard: farewell they with their crabbed subtleties: which however they may be defended with caviling, yet are therefore to be refused of all good men because they do nothing else but spread much darkness over the brightness of the Supper. Therefore bidding them farewell, let the readers understand that I here match in fight with that opinion, wherewith the Romish Antichrist and his prophets have infected the whole world, namely that the Mass is a work whereby the sacrificing priest who offers up Christ, and the others that do partake at the same oblation, do deserve the favor of God: or that it is a cleansing sacrifice, whereby they reconcile God to themselves. Neither has this been received only in common opinion of the people, but the very doing itself is so framed, that it is a kind of pacifying whereby satisfaction is made to God for the purging of the living and dead. The words also which they use, do express the same: and no other thing may we gather of the daily use of it. I know how deep roots this pestilence has taken, under how great a seeming of goodness it lurks, how it bears in show the name of Christ, how in the one name of Mass many believe that they comprehend the whole sum of faith. But when it shall be by the word of God most clearly proved, that this Mass, however much it be colored and glorious, yet shamefully dishonors Christ, buries and oppresses his cross, puts his death in forgetfulness, takes away the fruit that comes thereof to us, does weaken and destroy the sacrament wherein was left the memory of his death: shall there then be any so deep roots, which this most strong arm — I mean the word of God — shall not cut down and overthrow? Is there any face so beautiful, that this light cannot reveal the evil which lurks under it?

Let us therefore show that which has been set in the first place, that in it is intolerable blasphemy and dishonor done to Christ. For he was consecrated of his Father a priest and Bishop, not for a time as we read that they were ordained in the old testament, whose life being mortal their priesthood also could not be immortal: for which cause also there needed successors that should from time to time be put in the place of them that died. But in place of Christ, which is immortal, there needs no vicar to be set after him. Therefore he was ordained of the Father a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek, that he should execute an everlasting priesthood. This mystery had been long before figured in Melchizedek, whom when the Scripture had once brought in for the priest of the living God, it never afterward made mention of him, as though he had had no end of his life. After this point of likeness, Christ was called a priest according to his order. Now they that do daily sacrifice, must needs appoint priests to make the oblations, whom they must appoint as it were successors and vicars in the stead of Christ. By which putting in stead of him, they do not only spoil Christ of his honor, and pluck from him the prerogative of eternal priesthood, but also travail to thrust him down from the right hand of his Father, on which he cannot sit immortal, but that he must therewith remain the eternal priest. Neither let them lay for themselves, that their petty sacrificers are not put in place of Christ as if he were dead, but only are helpers of his eternal priesthood, which ceases not therefore to continue. For they are more strongly held fast with the words of the apostle, than that they may so escape: namely, that there were many other priests made, because they were by death hindered to continue. Therefore there is but one that is not hindered by death, and he needs no companions. Yet, such is their stubbornness, they arm themselves with the example of Melchizedek to defend their wickedness. For, because it is said that he offered bread and wine, they gather that he was a foreshadowing of their Mass: as though the likeness between him and Christ were in the offering of bread and wine. Which is so empty and trifling that it needs no confutation. Melchizedek gave bread and wine to Abraham and his companions, to refresh them being weary after their journey and battle. What is this to a sacrifice? Moses praises the gentleness of the holy king: these fellows unseasonably coin a mystery whereof no mention is made. Yet they deceitfully paint their error with another color, because it follows by and by after. And he was the priest of the highest God. I answer, that they wrongfully draw to the bread and wine that which the apostle refers to the blessing. Therefore when he was the priest of God he blessed Abraham. Whereupon the same apostle (than whom we need to seek no better expositor) gathers his excellence, because the lesser is blessed of the greater. But if the oblation of Melchizedek were a figure of the sacrifice of the Mass: would the apostle, I pray you, which searches out all even the least things, have forgotten so earnest and weighty a thing? Now (however they trifle) they shall in vain go about to overthrow the reason which the apostle himself brings that the right and honor of sacrificing priesthood ceases among mortal men, because Christ which is immortal, is the only and perpetual sacrificing priest.

Another virtue of the Mass was that it oppresses and buries the cross and passion of Christ. This verily is most certain, that the cross of Christ is overthrown as soon as the altar is set up. For if he offered himself for a sacrifice upon the cross, that he might sanctify us forever, and purchase to us eternal redemption: undoubtedly the force and effectualness of that sacrifice continues without any end. Otherwise we should think nothing more honorably of Christ than of oxen and calves which were sacrificed under the law: the offerings whereof are proved ineffectual and weak by this, that they were often renewed. Therefore either we must confess that the sacrifice of Christ, which he fulfilled upon the cross, lacked the force of eternal cleansing, or that Christ has made an end of all with one sacrifice once for ever. This is what the Apostle says, that this chief Bishop Christ once appeared by offering up of himself before the ending of the world, to the driving away of sin. Again, that we are sanctified by the will of God, by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once. Again, that Christ with one oblation forever has made perfect those that are sanctified: to which he adjoins a notable sentence, that forgiveness of sins being once purchased, there remains no more any oblation. This also Christ signified by his last saying, uttered among his last gasps, when he said, It is ended. We are accustomed to note the last sayings of men when they are dying, as oracles. Christ dying testifies that by his one sacrifice is perfected and fulfilled whatever was for our salvation. Shall it be lawful for us daily to patch innumerable sacrifices to such a sacrifice (the perfection whereof he has so shiningly set forth) as though it were imperfect? When the holy word of God not only affirms, but also cries out and protests, that this sacrifice was once fully done and that the force thereof remains everlasting: whoever requires another sacrifice, do they not accuse this of imperfection and weakness? But as for the Mass, which has been delivered in such sort that there may every day be made a hundred thousand sacrifices, to what end does it tend, but that the passion of Christ, whereby he offered himself an only sacrificed oblation to the Father, should lie buried and drowned? Who, unless he be blind, cannot see that it was the boldness of Satan which wrestled against so open and clear truth? Neither am I ignorant of what deceits that father of lying uses to color this his fraud, saying that there are not sundry nor diverse sacrifices, but that one self same sacrifice is repeated. But such smokes are easily blown away. For in the whole discourse the Apostle labors to prove: not only that there are no other sacrifices, but that that one sacrifice was once offered up, and shall no more be repeated. The subtler men do yet slip out at a narrower hole, saying that it is not a repeating but an applying. But this sophistical argument also is no less easily confuted. For neither did Christ once offer up himself with this condition, that his sacrifice should be daily confirmed with new oblations: but that by the preaching of the Gospel, and ministering of the holy Supper, the fruit thereof should be communicated to us. So Paul says that Christ our Passover was offered up, and bids us to eat of him. This (I say) is the means whereby the sacrifice of the cross is rightly applied to us, when it is communicated to us to take the use of it, and we with true faith receive it.

But it is worth the labor to hear with what other foundation besides these they uphold the sacrifice of the Mass. For they draw to this purpose the prophecy of Malachi, whereby the Lord promises that the time shall come when throughout the whole world there shall be offered to his name incense and a clean sacrifice. As though it were a new or unusual thing among the Prophets, when they speak of the calling of the Gentiles, to express by the outward ceremony of the law the spiritual worshipping of God, to which they exhort them: that they might the more familiarly declare to the men of their age, that the Gentiles should be called into the true fellowship of religion. Likewise they are accustomed altogether to describe by figures of their law the truth that was delivered by the Gospel. So they set forth turning to the Lord, ascending into Jerusalem: for the worshipping of God, the offering of all kinds of gifts: for larger knowledge of him which was to be given to the faithful in the kingdom of Christ, dreams and visions. That therefore which they allege is like to another prophecy of Isaiah, where the Prophet foretells of three altars to be set up in Assyria, Egypt, and Judea. For first I ask, whether they do not grant that the fulfilling of this prophecy is in the kingdom of Christ. Secondly, where are these altars, or when they were ever set up. Thirdly, whether they think that to every several kingdom is appointed a several temple, such as was that at Jerusalem. These things if they weigh, I think they will confess that the Prophet under figures agreeable with his time, prophesies of the spiritual worship of God to be spread abroad into the whole world. Which we give to them for a solution. But of this thing, since there do everywhere examples commonly offer themselves, I will not busy myself in longer rehearsal of them. However, herein also they are miserably deceived, in that they acknowledge no sacrifice but of the Mass, whereas in deed the faithful do now sacrifice to the Lord, and do offer a clean offering, of which shall be spoken by and by.

Now I come down to the third office of the Mass, where I must declare how it blots out the true and only death of Christ, and shakes it out of the remembrance of men. For as among men the strength of a testament hangs upon the death of the testator: so also our Lord has with his death confirmed the testament whereby he has given us forgiveness of sins and eternal righteousness. They that dare vary or make new anything in this testament, do deny his death, and hold it as it were of no force. But what is the Mass, but a new and altogether diverse testament? For why? Does not every several Mass promise new forgiveness of sins, new purchasing of righteousness: so that now there be so many testaments, as there be Masses? Let Christ therefore come again, and with another death confirm this testament, or rather with infinite deaths confirm innumerable testaments of Masses. Have I not therefore said true at the beginning, that the only and true death of Christ is blotted out by Masses? Indeed, what shall we say of this that the Mass directly tends to this end, that if it be possible, Christ should be slain again? For where is a testament (says the Apostle) there of necessity must be the death of the testator. The Mass shows itself to be a new testament of Christ: therefore it requires his death. Moreover the host which is offered, must necessarily be slain and sacrificed. If Christ in every several Mass be sacrificed, then he must at every moment be in a thousand places cruelly slain. This is not mine, but the Apostle's argument, If he had needed to offer himself often, he must often have died since the beginning of the world. I know that they have an answer in readiness, whereby also they charge us with slander. For they say that that is objected against them which they never thought, nor yet can. And we know, that the death and life of Christ is not in their hand. We look not whether they go about to kill him: only our purpose is to show, what manner of absurdity follows of their ungodly and wicked doctrine. Which self thing I prove by the Apostle's own mouth. Though they cry out to the contrary a hundred times, that this sacrifice is unbloody: I will deny that it hangs upon the will of men, that sacrifices should change their nature, for by this means the holy and inviolable ordinance of God should fail. Whereupon follows that this is a sure principle of the Apostle, that there is required shedding of blood, that washing may not be wanting.

Now is the fourth office of the Mass to be treated of, namely to take away from us the fruit that came to us of the death of Christ, while it makes us not to acknowledge it and think upon it. For who can call to mind that he is redeemed by the death of Christ when he sees a new redemption in the Mass? Who can trust that sins are forgiven him, when he sees a new forgiveness? Neither shall he escape that shall say, that we do for no other cause obtain forgiveness of sins in the Mass, but because it is already purchased by the death of Christ. For he brings nothing else than as if he would boast, that Christ has redeemed us with this condition that we should redeem ourselves. For such doctrine has been spread by the ministers of Satan, and such at this day they maintain with crying out, with sword and fire, that we when in the Mass we offer up Christ to his Father, by this work of offering do obtain forgiveness of sins, and are made partakers of the passion of Christ. What now remains to the passion of Christ, but to be an example of redemption, whereby we may learn to be our own redeemers? Christ himself, when in the Supper he seals the confidence of pardon, does not bid his disciples to stick in that doing, but sends them away to the sacrifice of his death: signifying that the Supper is a monument or memorial (as the common speech is) whereby they may learn that the satisfactory cleansing sacrifice, by which the Father was to be appeased, must have been offered but once. For neither is it enough to know that Christ is the only sacrifice, unless the only sacrificing be joined with it, that our faith may be fastened to his cross.

Now I come to the conclusion, namely that the holy Supper, in which the Lord had left the remembrance of his passion graven and expressed, is by the setting up of the Mass, taken away, defaced, and destroyed. For the Supper itself is the gift of God, which was to be received with thanksgiving. The sacrifice of the Mass is famed to pay a price to God, which he may receive for satisfaction. How much difference there is between to give and to receive, so much does the sacrifice differ from the Sacrament of the Supper. And this truly is the most wretched unthankfulness of man, that where the largesse of God's bounty ought to have been acknowledged, and thanks to be given, therein he makes God his debtor. The Sacrament promised, that by the death of Christ we are not only once restored into life, but are continually quickened, because then all the parts of our salvation were fulfilled. The sacrifice of the Mass sings a far other song, that Christ must be daily sacrificed, that he may somewhat profit us. The Supper should have been distributed in the common assembly of the Church, that it might inform us of the communion whereby we all cleave together in Christ Jesus. The sacrifice of the Mass dissolves and plucks asunder this community. For after that the error grew in force, that there must be sacrificers that should sacrifice for the people, the Supper of the Lord as though it were posted over to them, ceased to be communicated to the congregation of the faithful according to the commandment of the Lord. An entry was made open to private Masses, which might rather resemble a certain excommunication, than that same community ordained of the Lord, when [reconstructed: a petty] sacrificer willing severally by himself to devour his sacrifice, does sever himself from the whole people of the faithful. I call private Mass (lest any man be deceived) wherever there is no partaking of the Lord's Supper among the faithful, although otherwise a great multitude of men be present.

And from where the very name of Mass first sprang, I could never certainly judge: except that it seems to me likely that it was taken from the offerings that were given. Whereupon the old writers use it commonly in the plural number. But, to leave striving about the name, I say that private Masses are directly against the ordinance of Christ, and therefore they are a wicked profaning of the holy Supper. For what has the Lord commanded us? not to take, and divide it among us? What manner of observing of the commandment does Paul teach? not the breaking of bread, which is the communion of the body and blood? (1 Corinthians 10:16) Therefore when one takes it without distributing, what likeness is there? But that same one man does it in the name of the whole Church. By what commandment? Is not this openly to mock God, when one man privately takes to himself that which ought not to have been done but among many? But because the words of Christ and Paul are plain enough, we may briefly conclude, that wherever is not breaking of bread to the communion of the faithful, there is not the Supper of the Lord, but a false and wrongful counterfeiting of the Supper. But a false counterfeiting is a corrupting. Now the corrupting of so great a mystery is not without wickedness. Therefore in private Masses is a wicked abuse. And (as one fault in religion from time to time breeds another) after that manner of offering without communion was once crept in, by little and little they began in every corner of Churches to make innumerable Masses, and diversely to draw the people here and there, which should have come together into one assembly, that they might acknowledge the mystery of their own unity. Now let them go and deny it to be idolatry, that in their Masses they show forth bread to be worshipped in place of Christ. For in vain they boast of those promises of the presence of Christ, which however they be understood, truly were not given to this purpose, that wicked and profane men, as often as they will, and to whatever abuse they please, may make the body of Christ: but that the faithful, when with religious observance they do in celebrating of the Supper follow the commandment of Christ, may enjoy the true partaking of him.

Besides that, this perverseness was unknown to the purer Church. For however the more shameless sort among our adversaries do here go about to disguise the matter with false colors, yet it is most sure that all antiquity is against them, as we have before proved in other things, and it may more certainly be judged by the continual reading of old writers. But before I make an end of speaking of it, I ask our Massing doctors, since they know that obedience is more esteemed of God than oblations, and that he more requires that his voice be hearkened to, than that sacrifices be offered: how they believe that this manner of sacrificing is acceptable to God, of which they have no certain commandment, and which they see not to be allowed by any one syllable of the Scripture. Moreover when they hear the Apostle say, that no man takes to himself the name and honor of sacrificing priesthood but he that is called as Aaron was: indeed and that Christ himself did not thrust in himself, but obeyed the calling of his Father: either they must bring forth God the author and ordainer of their sacrificing priesthood, or they must confess that the honor is not of God, into which they have with wicked rashness broken in uncalled (1 Samuel 16:22). But they cannot show one tittle of a letter that maintains their sacrificing priesthood. Why therefore shall not their sacrifices vanish away, which cannot be offered without a priest?

If any man does thrust in short sentences of the old writers gathered here and there, and does by their authority strive to prove that the sacrifice which is done in the Supper is far otherwise to be understood than we do expound it: let him be briefly answered thus: if the question be of allowing the forged device of sacrifice, such as the Papists have feigned in the Mass, the old writers do never speak in defense of such sacrilege. They do indeed use the word Sacrifice: but with that they expound, that they mean nothing else but the remembrance of that true and only sacrifice, which Christ our only sacrificing priest (as they everywhere report of him) made on the cross. The Hebrews (says Augustine) in the sacrifices of beasts which they offered to God, did celebrate a prophecy of the sacrifice to come, which Christ offered: the Christians do with the holy oblation and partaking of the body of Christ celebrate a remembrance of the sacrifice already made. Here verily he teaches altogether the same thing, which is written in more words in the book of Faith to Peter the Deacon, whoever be the author of it. The words be these, Believe most steadfastly and doubt not at all, that the only begotten himself, being made flesh for us, offered himself for us a sacrifice and oblation to God into a savor of sweetness: to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost in the time of the old testament beasts were sacrificed: and to whom now with the Father and the Holy Ghost (with whom he has one Godhead) the holy Church throughout the whole world ceases not to offer the sacrifice of bread and wine. For in those fleshly sacrifices was a figuring of the flesh of Christ which he should offer for our sins, and of his blood which he should shed to the forgiveness of sins. But in this sacrifice is thanksgiving and rehearsal of the flesh of Christ which he offered for us, and of his blood which the same he has shed for us. Whereupon Augustine himself in many places expounds it to be nothing else but a sacrifice of praise. Finally you shall commonly find in him, that the Supper of the Lord is for no other reason called a sacrifice, but because it is the remembrance, image, and witness of that singular, true, and only sacrifice with which Christ has cleansed us. Also there is a notable place in his fourth book of the Trinity, the twenty-fourth chapter, where after that he has discoursed of the only sacrifice, he thus concludes: because in a sacrifice four things are considered, to whom it is offered, and of whom, what is offered, and for whom. The same he himself the one and true mediator reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, remains one with him to whom he offered: makes them one in him for whom he offered: is one himself which offered, and the thing which he offered. To the same effect also speaks Chrysostome. But they so challenge the honor of sacrificing priesthood to Christ, that Augustine testifies it to be the voice of Antichrist if any man make a Bishop intercessor between God and men.

Yet do we not deny but that the offering up of Christ is there so shown in us, that the spectacle of the cross is in a manner set before our eyes: as the Apostle says that Christ was crucified in the eyes of the Galatians, when the preaching of the cross was set before them. But inasmuch as I see that those old Fathers also wrested this remembrance another way than was agreeable with the institution of the Lord (because their Supper contained I know not what repeated or at least renewed form of sacrificing) the safest way for godly hearts shall be to rest in the pure and simple ordinance of God: whose also the Supper is therefore called, because in it his authority alone ought to be in force. Truly since I find that they have kept a godly and true sense of this whole mystery, and I do not perceive that they meant to abate anything, were it never so little, from the only sacrifice of the Lord, I cannot condemn them of ungodliness: yet I think that they cannot be excused, but that they have offended somewhat in the manner of the celebration. For they counterfeited the Jewish manner of sacrificing more nearly than either Christ had ordained, or the nature of the Gospel did bear. Therefore that same wayward application to heavenly things is the only thing in which a man may worthily blame them, for that being not contented with the simple and natural institution of Christ, they swerved to the shadows of the law.

If a man does diligently weigh, that this difference is put by the word of the Lord between the sacrifices of Moses, and our thanksgiving, that whereas those did represent to the Jewish people, the same effectualness of the death of Christ, which is at this day delivered to us in the Supper, yet the manner of representing was diverse. For in those, the Levitical priests were commanded to figure that which Christ should perform: there was brought a sacrifice which should be in the stead of Christ himself: there was an altar on which it should be offered: finally all things were so done, that there was set before their eyes an image of the sacrifice which was to be offered to God for a satisfactory cleansing. But since the time that the sacrifice is ended, the Lord has appointed to us another order: namely that it should convey to the faithful people the fruit of the sacrifice offered to him by the Son. Therefore he has given us a table at which we should eat, not an altar on which sacrifice should be offered: he has not consecrated priests to sacrifice, but ministers to distribute the holy banquet. How much more high and holy the mystery is, so much more religiously and with greater reverence it is fitting to be handled. Therefore there is no way safer, than putting away all boldness of man's understanding, to stick fast in that alone which the Scripture teaches. And truly if we consider that it is the Supper of the Lord and not of men, there is no cause why we should suffer ourselves to be removed one hair's breadth from it by any authority of men or prescription of years. Therefore when the Apostle minded to cleanse it from all faults which had already crept into the Church of the Corinthians, he uses the readiest way to that end, that is, he calls it back to the only institution of it, from which he shows that a perpetual rule ought be fetched.

Now, lest any wrangler should stir us up with strife by reason of the names of sacrifice and sacrificing priest, I will also declare, but yet briefly, what in the whole discourse I have meant by a sacrifice, and what by a sacrificing priest. Whoever stretches the word sacrifice to all holy ceremonies and doings of religion, I see not by what reason they do it. We do know that by the continual use of the Scripture a sacrifice is called that which the Greeks call sometimes Thusia, sometimes Prosphora, sometimes Telete. Which being generally taken comprehends whatever is in any wise offered to God. Therefore we must make distinction: but yet so that this distinction may have a higher application of similitude from the sacrifices of the law of Moses, under the shadows of which the Lord willed to represent to his people the whole truth of sacrifices. Of those, although there were diverse forms, yet they may all be referred to two sorts. For either there was oblation made for sin after a certain manner of satisfaction, whereby guiltiness was redeemed before God: or it was a sign of the worshipping of God, and a testifying of religion — sometimes in place of supplication, to seek the favor of God; sometimes in place of thanksgiving, to testify thankfulness of mind for benefits received; sometimes only for an exercise of godliness, to renew the establishing of the covenant — to which latter sort pertained burnt offerings, drink offerings, oblations, first fruits, and peace offerings. Therefore let us also divide ours into two kinds: and for teaching's sake let us call the one the sacrifice of worship and of godly devotion, because it consists in the honoring and worshipping of God, which the faithful both owe and yield to him — or, if you will, the sacrifice of thanksgiving, inasmuch as it is given to God of none but of those who, being laden with immeasurable benefits, do render to him themselves with all their doings. The other may be called propitiatory or of expiation. The sacrifice of expiation is that which tends to appease the wrath of God, to satisfy his judgment, and so to wash and wipe away sins — whereby the sinner, cleansed from the filthy spots of them and restored into purity of righteousness, may return into favor with God himself. So in the law those were called sacrifices that were offered for the purging of sins — not because they were sufficient to recover the favor of God, or to put away iniquity, but because they shadowed out such a true sacrifice which at length was fully accomplished by Christ alone, and by him alone, because it could be done by none other, and once, because the effectualness and force of that one sacrifice which Christ has fully accomplished is eternal, as he himself has testified with his own mouth when he said that it was ended and fulfilled — that is to say, that whatever was necessary to the reconciling of the Father's favor, to the obtaining of the forgiveness of sins, to righteousness and to salvation, all the same was performed and fulfilled with that his only oblation, and there was nothing wanting thereof, so that there was afterward no place left to any other sacrifice.

Therefore I determine that it is a most wicked reproach, and a blasphemy not to be suffered, as well against Christ as against the sacrifice which he has fully accomplished by his death upon the cross for us, if any man by renewing an oblation thinks to purchase the pardon of sins, to appease God, and to obtain righteousness. But what is else done by the Mass, but that by the deserving of new oblation we may be made partakers of the passion of Christ? And, that there might be no measure of madness, they thought it but a small thing to say that there is made indifferently a common sacrifice for the whole Church, unless they further said that it is in their choice to apply it peculiarly to this man or that man to whom they would, or rather to every one whoever he were that would buy for himself such wares with ready money. Now because they could not reach to the price that Judas had, yet that they might in some measure resemble their author, they kept the likeness of number. Judas sold him for thirty silver coins; these fellows sell him, after the French account, for 30 brass coins — but Judas sold him once, these fellows sell him as often as they can find a buyer. In this sense also we deny that they are sacrificing priests — that is to say, those who with such an oblation are mediators to God for the people, those who, appeasing God, may purchase the satisfactory purging of sins. For Christ is the only Bishop and sacrificing priest of the new Testament, into whom all priesthoods are transferred, and in whom they are shut up and ended. And if the Scripture had made no mention of the eternal priesthood of Christ, yet inasmuch as God, since he has taken away those old priesthoods, has ordained none, the Apostle's argument remains invincible, that no man takes honor to himself but he that is called of God. By what confidence therefore dare these robbers of God, who boast themselves as the slaughterers of Christ, call themselves the sacrificing priests of the living God?

Plato has an excellent place in his second book of the Common Wealth, where when he treats of the old manner of expiation, and laughs to scorn the foolish confidence of evil men and wicked doers, which thought that their wicked doings were by these as by coverings hidden so that the Gods could not see them, and did, as if they had gotten warrant of the Gods by covenant, more carelessly follow their own lusts: he seems thoroughly to touch the manner of satisfactory purging of the Mass, such as is at this day in the world. To beguile and undermine another man, all men know to be unlawful. To grieve widows with wrongful dealings, to rob the fatherless, to trouble the poor, by evil crafty means to catch other men's goods to themselves, with forswearings and deceits to enter forcibly into any man's possessions, to oppress any man with violence and tyrannous fear, all men confess to be wicked. How therefore dare so many commonly do all these things, as though they should freely be bold to do them? Truly, if we rightly weigh it, no other cause does so much encourage them, but because they have confidence, that by the sacrifice of a Mass, as by payment of full price for recompense, they shall satisfy God, or at the least that this is an easy way to compound with him. Then Plato proceeds further to scorn their gross blockishness, which think that by such satisfactory cleansings those pains are redeemed that otherwise they should suffer in hell. And to what purpose serve at this day the yearly obits, and the greater part of Masses, but that they which throughout all their life have been most cruel tyrants, or most ravenous robbers, or given forth to all mischievous doings, should as though they were redeemed by this price, escape the fire of purgatory?

Under the other kind of sacrifice, which we have called the sacrifice of Thanksgiving, are contained all the dutiful works of charity, which when we extend to our brothers, we honor the Lord himself in his members: then, all our prayers, praisings, givings of thanks, and whatever we do to the worshipping of God. All which things finally do hang upon the greater sacrifice, by which we are in soul and body hallowed to be a holy temple to the Lord. For neither is it enough, if our outward doings be applied to the obeying of him: but first ourselves, and then all that is ours ought to be consecrated and dedicated to him: that whatever is in us, may serve his glory, and may savor of zealous endeavor to advance it. This kind of sacrifice tends nothing at all to appease the wrath of God, nothing at all to obtain forgiveness of sins, nothing at all to deserve righteousness: but is occupied only in magnifying and extolling of God. For it cannot be pleasant and acceptable to God, but at their hands, whom by forgiveness of sins already received he has by other means reconciled to himself, and therefore acquitted them from guiltiness. But it is so necessary for the Church, that it cannot be away from it. Therefore it shall be everlasting, so long as the people of God shall continue, as we have before already showed out of the Prophet: for in that meaning I will take this prophecy, For from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof, great is my name among the Gentiles, and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a clean offering: because my name is terrible among the Gentiles, says the Lord: so far is it from us, that we would put it away. So Paul bids us to offer our bodies, a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a reasonable worship. Where he spoke very pithy, when he added that this is our reasonable worshipping: for he meant the spiritual manner of worshipping of God, which he did secretly set in comparison against the carnal sacrifices of the law of Moses. So liberal doing of good and communicating are called sacrifices by which God is pleased. So the liberality of the Philippians, by which they had relieved the poverty of Paul, is called a sacrifice of sweet smelling. So all the good works of the faithful are called spiritual sacrifices.

And why do I seek out many examples? For commonly this manner of speaking is often found in the Scriptures. Indeed, while the people of God was yet held under the outward schooling of the law, yet the Prophets did sufficiently express, that under those carnal sacrifices was the truth, which the Christian Church has in common with the nation of the Jews. After which manner David prayed, that his prayer might as incense, ascend into the sight of God. And Hosea called givings of thanks, the calves of lips, which in another place David calls the sacrifices of praise. Whom the Apostle himself following, calls them also the sacrifices of praise, and expounds them the fruits of lips confessing to his name. This kind of sacrifice the Supper of the Lord cannot want: wherein when we declare his death and render thanksgiving, we do nothing but offer the sacrifice of praise. Of this office of sacrificing, all we Christians are called a kingly Priesthood: because by Christ we offer to God that sacrifice of praise of which the Apostle speaks, the fruit of lips that confess to his name. For neither do we with our gifts appear in the sight of God without an intercessor. Christ is he, which being the mediator coming between, we offer ourselves and ours to the Father. He is our Bishop, which being entered into the sanctuary of heaven has opened the entry to us. He is the altar, upon which we lay our gifts, that in him we may be bold in all that we are bold. It is he (I say) that has made us a kingdom and Priests to the Father.

What remains but that the blind may see, the deaf may hear, children themselves may understand this abomination of the Mass? Which being offered in a golden cup, has made drunk the kings and peoples of the earth, from the highest to the lowest, has so stricken them with drowsiness and giddiness, that being become more senseless than brute beasts, they have set the whole ship of their safety only in this deadly devouring gulf. Truly Satan never did bend himself with a stronger engine than this to assail and vanquish the kingdom of Christ. This is the Helen, for whom the enemies of the truth fight at this day with so great rage, so great furiousness, so great cruelty: and a Helen indeed, with whom they so defile themselves with spiritual whoredom, which is the most cursed of all. I do not here so much as once touch with my little finger those gross abuses, with which they might color the unholy pureness of their holy Mass: how filthy marketings they use, how dishonest gains they make with their massings, with how great ravening they fill their covetousness. Only I do point to, and that with few and plain words, what manner of thing is even the very holiest holiness of the Mass, for which it has deserved in certain ages past to be so honorable and to be had in so great reverence. For, to have these so great mysteries set out according to their worthiness, requires a greater work: and I am unwilling to mingle herewith those filthy uncleannesses that commonly show themselves before the eyes and faces of all men: that all men may understand, that the Mass taken in her most picked pureness, and with which it may be set out to the best show, without her appendances, from the root to the top swarms full of all kinds of wickedness, blasphemy, idolatry, and sacrilege.

The readers now have in a manner almost all those things gathered into an abridgment, which we have thought necessary to be known concerning these two Sacraments: the use of which has been delivered to the Christian Church from the beginning of the new testament, to continue to the very end of the world: namely, that Baptism should be as it were a certain entry into it, and an admission into Faith: and the Supper should be as it were a continual food, with which Christ spiritually feeds the family of his faithful. Therefore as there is but one God, one Faith, one Christ, one Church his body: so there is but one Baptism, and is not often ministered again. But the Supper is from time to time distributed, that they which have been once received into the Church, may understand that they be continually fed with Christ. Beside these two, as there is no other Sacrament ordained of God, so neither ought the Church of the faithful to acknowledge any other. For, that it is not a thing that lies in the choice of man, to raise and set up new Sacraments, he shall easily understand who remembers that which has been here before plainly enough declared, that is, that Sacraments are appointed of God to this end, that they should instruct us of some promise of his, and testify to us his good will toward us: and he also that calls to mind, that none has been God's counselor, that might promise us any certainty of his will, or assure us and bring us out of care, what affection he bears toward us, what he will give, or what he will deny us. For with that is also determined, that no man can set forth a sign to be a testimony of any will or promise of his: it is he himself alone, that can by a sign given testify to us of himself (Isaiah 40:13; Romans 11:34). I will speak it more briefly, and perhaps more grossly, but more plainly. A Sacrament can never be without promise of salvation. All men gathered on a heap together can of themselves promise nothing of our salvation. Therefore neither can they of themselves set forth or set up a Sacrament.

Therefore let the Christian Church be contented with these two, and let her not only not admit or acknowledge any third for the present time, but also not desire or look for any to the end of the world. For whereas certain diverse Sacraments, beside those their ordinary ones, were given to the Jews, according to the diverse course of times, as Manna, Water springing out of the rock, the Brazen serpent and such other: they were by this change put in mind that they should not stay upon such figures, whose state was not very steadfast: but that they should look for some better thing from God, which should continue without any decaying, and without any end. But we are in a far other case, to whom Christ is openly showed: in whom all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom are hidden with so great abundance and plenty, that either to hope for or look for any new increase to these treasures, is truly to move God to wrath, and to provoke him against us. We must hunger for, seek, look upon, learn, and thoroughly learn Christ alone, until that great day shall appear, wherein the Lord shall openly show to the full of glory of his kingdom, and himself such as he is, to be beheld of us. And for this reason this our age is in the Scriptures signified by the last hour, the last days, the last times, that no man should deceive himself with vain looking for any new doctrine or revelation. For many times and in many sorts he spoke before by his Prophets: in these last days the heavenly Father has spoken in his beloved Son, which only can manifestly show the Father: and indeed he has manifestly showed him to the full, so much as is fitting for us, while we now behold him by a glass. As therefore this is now taken away from men, that they cannot make new Sacraments in the Church of God: so it were to be wished, that as little as were possible of man's invention might be mingled with those Sacraments that are of God. For like as when water is poured in, the wine departs and is diluted: and as with leaven scattered among it, the whole lump of dough grows sour: so the pureness of the mysteries of God is nothing else but defiled when man adds anything of his own. And yet we see how far the Sacraments are swerved out of kind from their natural pureness, as they be handled at this day. There is everywhere too much of pomps, ceremonies, and gesturings: but of the word of God in the mean time there is neither any consideration nor mention, without which even the Sacraments themselves are not Sacraments. Indeed even the very ceremonies that are ordained of God, in so great a rout cannot once lift up their head, but lie as it were oppressed. How little is that seen in Baptism, which only ought there to have shined and been looked upon, as we have in another place rightly complained, even Baptism itself? As for the Supper, it is utterly buried, since that it has been turned into the Mass, saving that it is seen once every year but in a mangled and half torn fashion.

Through these and similar inventions, Satan has labored to spread darkness over the holy Supper of Christ — to obscure and defile it so that its purity could no longer be maintained in the church. But the crowning horror of his abominations came when he promoted an error by which the Supper would not merely be darkened and distorted but utterly blotted out and erased from human memory. He blinded nearly the whole world with a most deadly error: the belief that the Mass is a sacrifice and an offering to obtain forgiveness of sins. I have no interest in how the sounder scholastic theologians originally understood this doctrine. I am done with their tangled subtleties — which, however cleverly defended, deserve to be rejected by all good people because they do nothing but cast thick darkness over the brightness of the Supper. Setting them aside, let readers understand that I am here taking on the opinion which the Roman Antichrist and his spokesmen have spread throughout the whole world — namely, that the Mass is an act by which the sacrificing priest who offers up Christ, and those who participate in the same offering, earn God's favor. Or that it is a purifying sacrifice by which they reconcile God to themselves. This has not merely been received as a popular belief — the practice itself is constructed as a kind of appeasement by which satisfaction is made to God for the cleansing of the living and the dead. The words used in the Mass express this same thing, and the daily practice of it confirms no other conclusion. I know how deeply this pestilence has taken root, under how attractive an appearance it hides, how it bears the name of Christ on its surface, and how many people believe the single word 'Mass' contains the entire sum of the faith. But when it is proven most clearly from the word of God that this Mass — however much it may be adorned and made to look glorious — shamefully dishonors Christ, buries and suppresses His cross, causes His death to be forgotten, takes away the fruit that flows from it to us, and weakens and destroys the sacrament in which the memory of His death was left to us — will any root then be so deep that this strong arm, the word of God, cannot cut it down and overthrow it? Is there any face so fair that this light cannot expose the evil lurking beneath it?

Let us then demonstrate what we stated first: that in the Mass there is intolerable blasphemy and dishonor done to Christ. He was consecrated by His Father as priest and bishop — not for a limited time, as we read of those ordained in the Old Testament, whose priesthood, like their mortal lives, could not last forever. Because of this, successors were needed to take the place of those who died. But in the place of Christ, who is immortal, no substitute is needed. He was therefore ordained by the Father as a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek, to exercise an everlasting priesthood. This mystery had long been prefigured in Melchizedek. When Scripture first introduces him as the priest of the living God, it never mentions him again — as though his life had no end. Following this pattern of resemblance, Christ was called a priest according to his order. Now those who offer a daily sacrifice must appoint priests to make the offerings — placing them as though they were successors and substitutes for Christ. By substituting others in His place, they not only strip Christ of His honor and rob Him of the prerogative of an eternal priesthood — they also labor to thrust Him down from the right hand of the Father, where He cannot sit as immortal without remaining the eternal priest. They should not try to excuse themselves by claiming their minor sacrificers are not placed in Christ's stead as if He were dead, but are merely helpers of His eternal priesthood, which therefore continues uninterrupted. For they are held too firmly by the apostle's own words to escape in this way — the apostle says that many priests were made because they were prevented from continuing by death. Therefore there is only one who is not hindered by death, and He needs no companions. Yet in their stubbornness they arm themselves with the example of Melchizedek to defend their error. Because it is said that he offered bread and wine, they conclude he prefigured their Mass — as though the resemblance between him and Christ were in the offering of bread and wine. This is so empty and trivial that it needs no refutation. Melchizedek gave bread and wine to Abraham and his companions to refresh them after their weary journey and battle. What does this have to do with a sacrifice? Moses praises the generosity of this holy king. These men invent a mystery out of nothing — one that the text does not mention at all. They also try to paint their error with another color by pointing to what immediately follows: 'And he was the priest of the Most High God.' I answer that they wrongly apply to the bread and wine what the apostle refers to the blessing. For as the priest of God, he blessed Abraham. From this the apostle himself — and we need no better interpreter — draws the conclusion that Melchizedek was greater, because the lesser is blessed by the greater. But if Melchizedek's offering had truly been a figure of the sacrifice of the Mass, would the apostle — who traces out even the smallest details — have forgotten something so significant and important? So however much they trifle, they will fail in their attempt to overthrow the apostle's own argument: that the right and office of the sacrificing priesthood among mortal men has come to an end, because Christ — who is immortal — is the one and only eternal priest.

Another evil of the Mass is that it suppresses and buries the cross and suffering of Christ. This is absolutely certain: the cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an altar is set up. For if He offered Himself as a sacrifice on the cross to sanctify us forever and to purchase for us eternal redemption — then the force and effectiveness of that sacrifice continues without end. Otherwise we would think no more highly of Christ than of the oxen and calves sacrificed under the law, which were proven ineffectual and weak by the very fact that they had to be repeated over and over. Therefore we must either confess that the sacrifice of Christ which He accomplished on the cross lacked the power of eternal cleansing, or that Christ finished everything with one sacrifice, once and for all. This is what the apostle says: that this great High Priest, Christ, appeared once at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the offering of Himself. Again: that we are sanctified by the will of God through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Again: that by a single offering Christ has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. To this the apostle adds a notable statement: that where forgiveness of sins has once been obtained, there is no longer any offering for sin. Christ Himself signified this with His final word, spoken in His last breath, when He said, 'It is finished.' We naturally pay close attention to the last words of dying people, as though they were solemn declarations. Christ, as He died, testified that by His one sacrifice everything necessary for our salvation was completed and accomplished. Is it then permissible for us to tack on countless daily sacrifices to such a sacrifice — the completeness of which He so powerfully declared — as though it were imperfect? When the holy word of God not only affirms but cries out and insists that this sacrifice was offered once and its power remains forever — does anyone who requires another sacrifice not accuse it of imperfection and weakness? As for the Mass, which has been set up in such a way that a hundred thousand sacrifices might be offered every day — what does this amount to except burying and drowning the suffering of Christ, by which He offered Himself as the one sacrificial offering to the Father? Who, unless they are blind, cannot see that this boldness is Satan's assault against such a plain and obvious truth? I am not unaware of the deceptions that this father of lies uses to disguise his fraud — saying that these are not multiple or different sacrifices but the one same sacrifice repeated. But such smoke is easily blown away. For throughout his entire argument the apostle labors to prove not only that there are no other sacrifices but that the one sacrifice was offered once and will not be repeated. The more sophisticated try to slip out through a narrower gap, saying it is not a repetition but an application. But this subtle argument is just as easily refuted. For Christ did not offer Himself once on the condition that His sacrifice would need to be daily confirmed by new offerings. Rather, the fruit of it was to be shared with us through the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the holy Supper. So Paul says that Christ our Passover was offered up, and bids us eat of Him. This is the means — I say — by which the sacrifice of the cross is rightly applied to us: when it is communicated to us so that we may benefit from it, and we receive it with true faith.

It is worth examining what other foundations besides these are used to uphold the sacrifice of the Mass. They appeal to the prophecy of Malachi, in which the Lord promises that the time will come when throughout the whole world incense and a pure offering will be offered to His name. But it is nothing new or unusual for the prophets, when speaking of the calling of the Gentiles, to express the spiritual worship of God — to which they urge people — in terms of the outward ceremonies of the law, in order to explain more clearly to the people of their own day that the Gentiles would be called into the true fellowship of religion. They customarily describe in figures drawn from the law the truth that would be delivered through the Gospel. So they depict turning to the Lord as ascending to Jerusalem; they depict the worship of God as the offering of all kinds of gifts; they depict the fuller knowledge of God to be given to the faithful in the kingdom of Christ as dreams and visions. What they cite, therefore, is comparable to another prophecy of Isaiah, where the prophet foretells that three altars would be set up in Assyria, Egypt, and Judah. First, I ask whether they grant that this prophecy is fulfilled in the kingdom of Christ. Second: where are these altars, or when were they ever set up? Third: do they think a separate temple — like the one in Jerusalem — is assigned to each separate kingdom? If they consider these things carefully, I believe they will admit that the prophet, using figures appropriate to his own time, was prophesying about the spiritual worship of God that would spread throughout the whole world. That is our answer to their argument. Since examples of this kind are everywhere common, I will not spend more time listing them. There is also another serious error they make: they acknowledge no sacrifice except the Mass, when in fact the faithful do now sacrifice to the Lord and do offer a pure offering — of which more will be said shortly.

I come now to the third charge against the Mass: that it blots out the one true death of Christ and removes it from human memory. Just as among people a will's power depends on the death of the person who made it, so our Lord confirmed by His death the testament in which He gave us forgiveness of sins and eternal righteousness. Those who dare to alter or add anything new to this testament deny His death and treat it as though it has no power. But what is the Mass except a new and entirely different testament? Why? Because does not each individual Mass promise a new forgiveness of sins and a new purchasing of righteousness — so that there are now as many testaments as there are Masses? Then let Christ come again and confirm this testament with another death — or rather, confirm the countless testaments of the Masses with countless deaths. Was I not right at the outset to say that the one true death of Christ is blotted out by the Mass? What shall we say about the fact that the Mass points directly toward the goal of having Christ slain again if that were possible? 'For where there is a will,' says the apostle, 'the death of the one who made it must be established.' The Mass presents itself as a new testament of Christ, and therefore it requires His death. Moreover, the host that is offered must necessarily be slain and sacrificed. If Christ is sacrificed at each individual Mass, then at every moment He must be cruelly slain in a thousand places. This argument is not mine — it belongs to the apostle: 'If it had been necessary to offer Himself often, He would have had to die repeatedly since the foundation of the world.' I know they have an answer ready, and they also charge us with slander for this argument. They say we are holding against them something they never intended and never could do. We know that the life and death of Christ is not in their hands. We are not asking whether they intend to kill Him. Our only purpose is to show what absurd conclusions follow from their wicked and ungodly doctrine. I prove this very thing from the apostle's own words. Even if they cry out a hundred times that this sacrifice is bloodless — I will deny that it is within human power to change the nature of sacrifices, for by doing so God's holy and inviolable ordinance would fail. And from that follows this sure principle of the apostle: that the shedding of blood is required so that cleansing may not be absent.

Now I come to the fourth charge against the Mass: that it robs us of the fruit that came to us from Christ's death by causing us not to acknowledge it or think about it. For who can remember that he is redeemed by the death of Christ when he sees a new redemption being offered in the Mass? Who can trust that his sins are forgiven when he sees a new forgiveness being purchased? Nor will anyone escape this charge by saying that we obtain forgiveness of sins in the Mass only because it was already purchased by Christ's death. That argument amounts to nothing more than claiming that Christ redeemed us on the condition that we would redeem ourselves. For this is the teaching that Satan's ministers have spread and that they still maintain today with shouting, with sword, and with fire: that when in the Mass we offer up Christ to His Father, we obtain forgiveness of sins through that act of offering, and thereby become partakers of Christ's suffering. What then is left to Christ's suffering except to serve as an example of redemption, teaching us to be our own redeemers? Christ Himself, when He sealed the assurance of pardon in the Supper, did not tell His disciples to rest in that act — He pointed them to the sacrifice of His death, making clear that the Supper is a memorial by which they would learn that the atoning sacrifice, by which the Father was to be appeased, needed to be offered only once. For it is not enough to know that Christ is the only sacrifice — that unique, once-for-all offering must be joined with it, so that our faith may be anchored to His cross.

I come now to my conclusion: the holy Supper, in which the Lord had left the remembrance of His suffering engraved and expressed for us, has been taken away, erased, and destroyed by the setting up of the Mass. The Supper itself is a gift of God, meant to be received with thanksgiving. The sacrifice of the Mass is presented as a payment made to God, which He receives as satisfaction. As great as the difference is between giving and receiving, so great is the difference between the sacrifice and the sacrament of the Supper. And this is the most wretched ingratitude of humanity: that where God's generous bounty ought to be acknowledged and thanked, they instead make God their debtor. The sacrament declared that by the death of Christ we were not only restored to life once but are continually made alive — because in that death all the parts of our salvation were fulfilled. The sacrifice of the Mass tells a very different story: that Christ must be sacrificed daily in order to benefit us at all. The Supper was to be distributed in the common assembly of the church, to teach us about the communion by which we all cling together in Christ Jesus. The sacrifice of the Mass dissolves and tears apart this community. For once the error grew strong — that there must be sacrificers who offer sacrifice on behalf of the people — the Lord's Supper, as though handed over entirely to them, ceased to be distributed to the congregation of the faithful according to the Lord's command. The door was opened to private Masses, which more closely resemble a kind of excommunication than the fellowship ordained by the Lord — for in them a petty sacrificer, wishing to consume the sacrifice by himself alone, separates himself from the entire people of God. I call it a private Mass — so no one is confused — any Mass at which there is no sharing of the Lord's Supper among the faithful, even if a large crowd of people happens to be present.

Where the very name 'Mass' first came from I have never been able to determine with certainty, except that it seems likely to me it was taken from the offerings that were given — which is why the older writers commonly use it in the plural. But leaving aside disputes about the name, I say that private Masses are directly contrary to the ordinance of Christ and are therefore a wicked profaning of the holy Supper. For what did the Lord command? Did He not say to take the bread and divide it among themselves? What form of observing this command does Paul teach? Is it not the breaking of bread, which is the communion of the body and blood? (1 Corinthians 10:16) So when one person takes it without distributing it, what resemblance does this have to Christ's institution? They say that this one person does it on behalf of the whole church. By what command? Is this not openly mocking God — when one man privately takes to himself what ought not to be done except among many? Since the words of Christ and Paul are clear enough, we may briefly conclude that wherever there is no breaking of bread in the communion of the faithful, there is no Lord's Supper — only a false and unauthorized imitation of it. But a false imitation is a corruption. And the corruption of such a great mystery is not without wickedness. Therefore private Masses involve a wicked abuse. And as one error in religion tends to breed another — once this practice of offering without communion crept in, they gradually began to multiply Masses in every corner of the churches, endlessly drawing people here and there rather than gathering them into one assembly where they might recognize the mystery of their own unity. Now let them go ahead and deny that it is idolatry — displaying bread in their Masses to be worshipped in place of Christ. Their boasts about the promises of Christ's presence are worthless. However those promises may be understood, they were certainly not given so that wicked and godless people could, whenever they wish and for whatever purpose they please, manufacture the body of Christ. They were given so that the faithful, when they follow Christ's command with reverent observance in celebrating the Supper, might enjoy the true partaking of Him.

This perverseness was unknown to the purer church. However much the more shameless among our opponents try to cover this with false arguments, it is most certain that all of antiquity is against them — as we have shown elsewhere and as any consistent reading of the ancient writers will confirm. But before I finish speaking about this, I have a question for our Mass-teaching doctors. Since they know that obedience is valued by God more than sacrifices, and that He demands that His voice be heard more than that offerings be brought — how do they believe that this manner of sacrificing is acceptable to God, for which they have no clear command, and which they cannot find approved by a single word of Scripture? Furthermore, when they hear the apostle say that no one takes to himself the name and honor of the sacrificing priesthood except one who is called as Aaron was — indeed, that even Christ Himself did not presume to act on His own but submitted to His Father's call — they must either produce God as the author and founder of their sacrificing priesthood, or they must confess that the honor into which they have broken with reckless boldness and without being called is not from God (1 Samuel 16:22). But they cannot show a single letter of Scripture that establishes their sacrificing priesthood. Why then should their sacrifices not collapse entirely, since they cannot be offered without a priest?

If anyone collects brief passages from the ancient writers here and there and tries to use their authority to prove that the sacrifice performed in the Supper should be understood very differently from how we explain it — let this be the brief answer: if the question is whether the fabricated notion of sacrifice that the papists have invented in the Mass is approved by the ancient writers, those writers never speak in defense of such sacrilege. They do use the word 'sacrifice' — but they immediately explain that they mean nothing other than the remembrance of that true and only sacrifice which Christ our only priest (as they consistently describe Him) made on the cross. 'The Hebrews,' says Augustine, 'in the sacrifices of animals which they offered to God, celebrated a prophecy of the sacrifice to come, which Christ offered. The Christians celebrate with the holy offering and partaking of the body of Christ a remembrance of the sacrifice already made.' Here he teaches exactly the same thing that is written at greater length in the book Faith for Peter the Deacon, whoever its author may be. The words are these: 'Believe most firmly and do not doubt at all that the only-begotten Son, having become flesh for us, offered Himself for us as a sacrifice and offering to God for a pleasing aroma. To Him, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, animals were sacrificed in the time of the Old Testament. To Him, with the Father and the Holy Spirit — with whom He shares one Godhead — the holy church throughout the whole world does not cease to offer the sacrifice of bread and wine.' 'For in those bodily sacrifices there was a foreshadowing of the flesh of Christ which He would offer for our sins, and of His blood which He would shed for the forgiveness of sins.' 'But in this sacrifice there is thanksgiving and the recalling of the flesh of Christ which He offered for us, and of His blood which He shed for us.' For this reason Augustine himself explains it in many places as nothing other than a sacrifice of praise. In short, you will commonly find in him that the Lord's Supper is called a sacrifice for no other reason than that it is the remembrance, image, and testimony of that singular, true, and only sacrifice by which Christ has cleansed us. There is also a notable passage in the fourth book of his work on the Trinity, chapter twenty-four, where after discussing the only sacrifice he concludes: 'In a sacrifice four things are to be considered: to whom it is offered, by whom, what is offered, 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; makes them one in Himself for whom He offered; is Himself the one who offered; and is the offering itself.' Chrysostom speaks to the same effect. Yet they assign the honor of the sacrificing priesthood so fully to Christ alone that Augustine declares it to be the voice of Antichrist if any person makes a bishop the intercessor between God and people.

We do not deny that the offering up of Christ is represented to us in the Supper in such a way that the sight of the cross is in a manner set before our eyes — just as the apostle says that Christ was crucified before the eyes of the Galatians when the preaching of the cross was proclaimed to them. But since I see that the ancient Fathers also bent this remembrance further than was consistent with the Lord's institution — because their Supper contained I know not what repeated or at least renewed form of sacrificing — the safest course for godly hearts is to rest in the pure and simple ordinance of God. The Supper is called the Lord's Supper precisely because His authority alone should govern it. Since I find that they held a sound and true understanding of the whole mystery, and I do not perceive that they intended to take away even the slightest thing from the Lord's one sacrifice, I cannot condemn them as ungodly. Yet I think they cannot be fully excused — they did err in their manner of celebration. For they imitated the Jewish manner of sacrificing more closely than either Christ had ordained or the nature of the Gospel could bear. Therefore the one thing for which they may rightly be criticized is this misguided imitation of heavenly things — that not being content with Christ's simple and natural institution, they drifted toward the shadows of the law.

If a person carefully weighs the distinction which the word of God establishes between the sacrifices of Moses and our thanksgiving, he will see this: while those sacrifices represented to the Jewish people the same effectiveness of Christ's death that is now delivered to us in the Supper, the manner of representation was different. In those sacrifices, the Levitical priests were commanded to foreshadow what Christ would accomplish. An animal was brought as a substitute for Christ Himself. There was an altar on which it was offered. Everything was arranged so that an image of the sacrifice to be offered to God as an atoning cleansing was placed before their eyes. But now that the sacrifice has been completed, the Lord has appointed a different order for us: to convey to the faithful people the fruit of the sacrifice offered to Him by His Son. Therefore He has given us a table at which we should eat — not an altar on which sacrifice should be offered. He has not consecrated priests to sacrifice but ministers to distribute the holy banquet. The higher and holier the mystery is, the more reverently and carefully it ought to be handled. There is therefore no safer path than to set aside all presumption of human understanding and hold fast to what Scripture alone teaches. And truly, if we consider that this is the Lord's Supper and not a human institution, there is no reason why we should allow ourselves to be moved from it even a hair's breadth by any human authority or ancient custom. Therefore when the apostle wanted to cleanse the Supper of all the faults that had crept into the church at Corinth, his approach was the most direct possible: he called it back to its original institution alone, from which he shows that a permanent rule must be drawn.

Now, so that no contentious person stirs up strife over the words 'sacrifice' and 'sacrificing priest,' I will briefly explain what I mean by each term throughout this discussion. I cannot see any reason for stretching the word 'sacrifice' to cover all religious ceremonies and holy acts. We know that throughout Scripture, a sacrifice is what the Greeks sometimes call thusia, sometimes prosphora, and sometimes telete. In its broad sense this includes anything offered to God in any way. We must therefore make a distinction — but a distinction that draws on the higher pattern of the sacrifices under Moses' law, through whose shadows the Lord intended to represent the whole truth of sacrifice to His people. Although the sacrifices under the law took many forms, they can all be grouped into two categories. Either an offering was made for sin as a kind of satisfaction — by which guilt was atoned for before God — or it was a sign of worship toward God and a testimony of devotion. The latter served at times as a petition to seek God's favor, at times as thanksgiving to acknowledge gratitude for blessings received, and at times simply as an exercise of godliness to renew the establishment of the covenant. To this second category belonged burnt offerings, drink offerings, grain offerings, firstfruits, and peace offerings. So let us also divide our own sacrifices into two kinds. For teaching purposes, let us call the first the sacrifice of worship and devout dedication — because it consists in honoring and worshipping God, which the faithful both owe to Him and render to Him. Or, if you prefer, call it the sacrifice of thanksgiving, since it is given to God by those who, overwhelmed by His countless benefits, give themselves and all their deeds back to Him. The second kind may be called the propitiatory sacrifice — the sacrifice of expiation. The sacrifice of expiation is one that aims to appease God's wrath, to satisfy His judgment, and thereby to wash and wipe away sins — so that the sinner, cleansed from their filth and restored to righteous purity, may be brought back into God's favor. So under the law, those sacrifices offered for the purging of sins were called sacrifices — not because they were sufficient to recover God's favor or to remove sin, but because they foreshadowed the true sacrifice that was ultimately and completely accomplished by Christ alone. By Christ alone — because no one else could accomplish it. Once — because the power and effectiveness of that one sacrifice which Christ fully accomplished is eternal, as He Himself declared with His own words when He said it was finished and fulfilled. That is: everything necessary for reconciling the Father's favor, for obtaining forgiveness of sins, for righteousness and salvation — all of it was performed and completed in that single offering, nothing was lacking, and therefore no room was left for any further sacrifice.

I therefore declare that it is a most wicked outrage and an intolerable blasphemy against both Christ and the sacrifice He fully accomplished by His death on the cross — for anyone to think that by offering a new oblation he can purchase pardon for sins, appease God, and obtain righteousness. But what else is done in the Mass except to claim that through the merit of a new offering we become partakers of Christ's suffering? And as if this madness were not enough, they thought it too small to say that a single sacrifice was offered indifferently for the whole church — they went further and claimed the power to apply it specifically to any individual they chose, or rather to anyone willing to buy such goods with ready money. Now since they could not quite match the price that Judas got, yet to preserve some resemblance to their predecessor, they kept the same number: Judas sold Christ for thirty silver coins; these men sell Him, in French currency, for thirty copper coins — but Judas sold Him once, while these men sell Him as often as they can find a buyer. In this same sense we also deny that they are sacrificing priests — that is, we deny that they serve as mediators before God on behalf of the people, or that by appeasing God they can purchase the atoning cleansing of sins. For Christ is the only high priest and sacrificing priest of the new covenant. All priesthoods have been transferred to Him, and in Him they are enclosed and brought to an end. Even if Scripture had said nothing about the eternal priesthood of Christ, the apostle's argument would still be unanswerable — since God, having taken away the old priesthoods, has appointed no new ones: no one takes this honor to himself except one who is called by God. With what boldness, then, do these robbers of God — who boast of themselves as the slaughterers of Christ — dare to call themselves the sacrificing priests of the living God?

Plato has an excellent passage in the second book of his Republic where, discussing the ancient manner of expiation, he ridicules the foolish confidence of wicked people and evildoers. These people thought that their crimes were hidden behind such rituals as behind a screen, so that the gods could not see them — and, as though they had secured a kind of covenant with the gods granting them immunity, they followed their own desires all the more carelessly. He seems to be describing precisely the kind of satisfactory purging offered by the Mass as it exists in the world today. Everyone knows it is wrong to deceive and undermine another person. To oppress widows with unjust dealings, to rob orphans, to exploit the poor, to seize other people's goods through scheming, to force one's way into someone's property through perjury and fraud, to crush people with violence and tyrannical intimidation — everyone confesses these things to be wicked. How then do so many people openly do all these things, as though they were completely free to act this way? Truly, if we examine it honestly, nothing encourages them more than the confidence that through the sacrifice of a Mass — as if paying the full price in compensation — they will satisfy God, or at least find an easy way to settle accounts with Him. Plato then goes further and mocks their thick-headed foolishness — those who think that by such atoning rituals they can buy their way out of the punishments they would otherwise suffer after death. And what are annual requiem Masses and the greater part of all Masses used for today, but to ensure that those who throughout their entire lives have been the cruelest tyrants, the most greedy robbers, or the most devoted to every kind of wickedness, may — as though redeemed by this price — escape the fires of purgatory?

Under the other kind of sacrifice, which we have called the sacrifice of thanksgiving, fall all the faithful acts of charity by which, when we serve our brothers, we honor the Lord Himself in His members. Under it also fall all our prayers, praises, thanksgivings, and everything we do in the worship of God. All of these, ultimately, depend on the greater sacrifice by which we are consecrated in soul and body to be a holy temple for the Lord. For it is not enough that our outward actions be applied to obeying Him. Rather, we ourselves — and then everything that belongs to us — ought to be consecrated and dedicated to Him, so that everything in us may serve His glory and reflect an earnest desire to advance it. This kind of sacrifice does absolutely nothing to appease God's wrath, nothing to obtain forgiveness of sins, and nothing to earn righteousness. It is occupied solely in magnifying and glorifying God. For it can only be pleasing and acceptable to God from those whom He has already reconciled to Himself through forgiveness of sins received by other means, and whom He has therefore acquitted of guilt. But it is so necessary for the church that the church cannot exist without it. It will therefore endure as long as the people of God continue — as we have already shown from the prophet. For in that sense I will interpret this prophecy: 'For from the rising of the sun to its setting, my name will be great among the Gentiles, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name will be great among the Gentiles, says the Lord.' Far be it from us to seek to abolish this. So Paul commands us to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God — our reasonable service. He spoke pointedly when he added that this is our reasonable service, for he meant the spiritual manner of worshipping God, which he was quietly contrasting with the physical sacrifices of the law of Moses. So generous giving and sharing are called sacrifices with which God is pleased. So the generosity of the Philippians, by which they had relieved Paul's poverty, is called a fragrant offering. So all the good works of the faithful are called spiritual sacrifices.

Why do I need to search out more examples? This manner of speaking occurs frequently throughout Scripture. Even while God's people were still held under the outward instruction of the law, the prophets made it sufficiently clear that the truth was present under those physical sacrifices — truth which the Christian church holds in common with the nation of the Jews. In this way David prayed that his prayer might ascend like incense before God. Hosea called acts of thanksgiving 'calves of our lips,' which David elsewhere calls sacrifices of praise. The apostle himself follows this pattern, calling them sacrifices of praise and explaining them as the fruit of lips that confess His name. The Lord's Supper cannot be without this kind of sacrifice. For when in it we proclaim His death and render thanksgiving, we do nothing other than offer the sacrifice of praise. For this office of sacrificing, all of us Christians are called a royal priesthood — because through Christ we offer to God that sacrifice of praise of which the apostle speaks: the fruit of lips that confess His name. For we do not come before God with our gifts without an intercessor. Christ is the one who, coming between us as mediator, brings us and all that is ours to the Father. He is our high priest who, having entered the heavenly sanctuary, has opened the way for us. He is the altar on which we lay our gifts, so that in Him we may have confidence in everything for which we dare to come before God. It is He, I say, who has made us a kingdom and priests to the Father.

What remains but for the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and even children to understand this abomination of the Mass? Served in a golden cup, it has made the kings and peoples of the earth drunk from the greatest to the least — striking them with such stupor and dizziness that, more senseless than brute animals, they have placed the whole hope of their salvation in this deadly and consuming pit. Truly Satan has never employed a stronger weapon to assault and overthrow the kingdom of Christ. This is the Helen for whom the enemies of the truth fight today with such fierce rage, such furious violence, such cruelty — and a Helen indeed, with whom they defile themselves with spiritual fornication, which is the most accursed of all. I will not even touch with a single finger those gross abuses with which they might disguise the unholy corruption of their holy Mass: the filthy selling of Masses, the shameful profits they extract from their celebrating, the insatiable greed with which they fill their covetousness. I am only pointing out — briefly and plainly — what kind of thing the very holiest form of the Mass is, the form for which it has deserved such honor and reverence in certain past ages. To lay out these great mysteries with the attention they deserve would require a larger work. And I am unwilling to mingle here those filthy corruptions that openly parade before everyone's eyes — so that all people may understand this: that the Mass, taken in its purest and most polished form, presented in the best possible light and stripped of its appendages, is from top to bottom swarming with every kind of wickedness, blasphemy, idolatry, and sacrilege.

Readers now have gathered into a brief summary nearly everything we have judged necessary to know about these two sacraments. Their use has been delivered to the Christian church from the beginning of the new covenant and is to continue to the very end of the world. Baptism serves as the entry point, the admission into the faith. The Supper serves as the continual food by which Christ spiritually nourishes the household of His faithful. Therefore, as there is one God, one faith, one Christ, one church which is His body — so there is one baptism, and it is not repeated. But the Supper is distributed repeatedly, so that those who have once been received into the church may understand that they are continually fed by Christ. Besides these two, God has ordained no other sacrament, and therefore the church of the faithful ought to acknowledge no other. That the establishment of new sacraments does not lie within human power will be easily understood by anyone who remembers what has already been plainly enough declared here: that sacraments are appointed by God for the purpose of instructing us in some promise of His and testifying His goodwill toward us. It will also be understood by anyone who remembers that no one has been God's counselor — no one who could promise us any certainty about His will, assure us and put us at rest about what His disposition is toward us, what He will give us, or what He will withhold. For this also settles the matter: no human being can set up a sign as a testimony of any of God's will or promises. Only God Himself can testify to us of Himself through a sign He has given (Isaiah 40:13; Romans 11:34). I will say it more briefly — perhaps more bluntly, but more plainly. A sacrament can never exist without a promise of salvation. All human beings put together can of themselves promise nothing about our salvation. Therefore they cannot of themselves establish or institute a sacrament.

Therefore let the Christian church be content with these two sacraments. Let her not only refuse to admit or acknowledge any third for the present age, but also not desire or look for any addition until the end of the world. Now, various additional sacraments beside their ordinary ones were given to the Jews at different periods — manna, water springing from the rock, the bronze serpent, and others like them. The very change and variation of these signs reminded the Jews not to cling to such figures, whose status was not permanent, but to look to God for something better that would endure without decay and without end. But we are in a very different situation. Christ has been openly revealed to us, and in Him all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom are hidden in such abundance that to hope for or look for any new addition to these treasures is truly to provoke God and stir His anger against us. We must hunger for, seek, look upon, learn, and come to know Christ alone — until that great day appears when the Lord will openly display the full glory of His kingdom, and will Himself be seen by us as He truly is. For this reason our age is described in Scripture as the last hour, the last days, the last times — so that no one deceives himself by waiting for some new doctrine or revelation. In many ways and at many times He spoke before through His prophets. In these last days the heavenly Father has spoken through His beloved Son, who alone can clearly reveal the Father — and indeed He has revealed Him fully, as much as is fitting for us in our present state, while we still see Him as through a glass. Since, then, it is no longer within human power to create new sacraments in the church of God, it should be equally our goal that as little of human invention as possible be mixed into the sacraments that God Himself has given. For just as wine is diluted and loses its strength when water is poured in, and just as a whole lump of dough turns sour when leaven is scattered through it — so the purity of God's mysteries is defiled when anything of human origin is added. Yet we can see how far the sacraments have been twisted from their natural purity in the way they are handled today. Everywhere there is far too much pomp, ceremony, and elaborate gesture — while the word of God, without which the sacraments are not sacraments at all, receives no consideration and no mention. Indeed, even the ceremonies that God Himself ordained can barely lift their head in such a crowd of additions — they lie buried beneath it all. How little of baptism itself is visible in baptism — the one thing that alone ought to shine and be seen there, as we have rightly complained elsewhere. As for the Supper, it has been utterly buried since it was turned into the Mass, except that it appears once a year in a mutilated and half-torn form.