was to die for us: but Aaron represented Jesus Christ as God, offering his body in sacrifice to his Father for our sins. The priests, therefore, in boasting that they sacrifice Jesus Christ, rank themselves above him.

say

VIII. It is necessary in every sacrifice, that the thing sacrificed and offered to God be destroyed. But Jesus suffers nothing in the mass, and is not destroyed. He is, therefore, not sacrificed in the mass. Το that the sacramental being or substance of Jesus is destroyed in the mass is mere trifling; for Jesus has only one being, namely, his natural being; and this expression, "sacramental being," is equivalent to significative being, which is a chi

mera.

The chief object they pretend to have in the mass, is to sacrifice Jesus Christ for our redemption. But the sacramental or significative being of the Lord is not the price of our redemption, nor is it sacrificed for us. If the sacrifice is offered when the species of bread and wine are destroyed, then we must say that the sacrifice is performed in the priest's stomach some hours after mass is ended, for a certain time must elapse before the species be destroyed by digestion.

IX. Add that in every sacrifice the thing to be sacrificed must be consecrated, there must then be some consecration in every sacrifice. But in the mass there is nothing consecrated. The bread is not consecrated, for they assert it is no more. The body of Christ is not consecrated, for he cannot be consecrated by men; it is Christ who consecrates us. The accidents of bread are not consecrated, for they are not offered to God in sacrifice, otherwise the mass would be a sacrifice of accidents, of colour, taste, lines, and superficies.

X. Never do our adversaries find themselves more perplexed than when called to point out in the institution of

this Sacrament some action in which the sacrifice consists, by which they pretend that the consecrated host is offered to God as a propitiatory sacrifice. Does this sacrifice consist in the words whereby the priest presents the body of Christ unto God, and beseeches him to accept it as an agreeable offering? But we have seen in the preceding chapter how our adversaries confess that Christ made no oblation, and presented nothing to his Father. Does the sacrifice consist in breaking bread? But that is impossible; for Jesus brake the bread before pronouncing the words which they call the consecration; he therefore did not break a consecrated host. And though the priest lets the consecrated host fall entire and unbroken into the cup, yet, as Ballarmine* acknowledges, the mass is still called a sacrifice. Perhaps they may say the sacrifice consists in the manducation; but that cannot be. For to eat is not to sacrifice;-if eating be sacrificing, every one of the people who eats the host is a priest, and the people's mouths are In all the sacrifices under the Mosaic law so many altars. at which the people did eat of the things sacrificed, the sacred feast took place some hours after the sacrifice was ended. Nor can the sacrifice consist in the pronunciation of the consecrating words; for by these words, This is my body, the priest offers nothing to God. But every sacrifice is an offering to God. Besides, in every sacrifice, the sacrificer addresses himself to God; but these words are addressed to the bread. Moreover, we have seen our opponents admitting in the confessions recorded above, that Jesus offered nothing to God. There was, therefore, no sacrifice.

XI. It is to be observed, that the order of priesthood

Bellar. lib. i. de Missa. c. 7, Sec. 6.

is a Sacrament in the Church of Rome, the institution of which, it is pretended, is to be found in the institution of the Eucharist, when the Lord said "Do this," as if he had instituted two Sacraments by the same words. They would be guilty of no greater absurdity though they were to pretend finding the institution of Marriage or extreme Unction, in the institution of Baptism. If the words, "Do this in memory of me," are the formulary by which Jesus conferred the order of priesthood, whence is it that bishops, in conferring this order at the four seasons, do not use the same words?

XII. Our adversaries reckon two kinds of sacrifice-the one bloody, the other unbloody-which they call the "Sacrifice of Melchizedek;" affirming it to be far more excellent than the bloody, and will have the mass to be the sacrifice according to the order of Melchizedek. Whence it follows, that the mass is more excellent than the death of Christ, which was a bloody sacrifice. It is, therefore, very amazing that the apostle, when speaking at such length upon the priesthood of Melchizedek, made no mention either of the Mass or the Eucharist.

XIII. But how could Christ, in these words, "Do this in remembrance of me," command men to sacrifice him in the mass, since it is impossible to sacrifice Jesus Christ in remembrance of Jesus Christ? Seeing, also, that immediately after these words Paul adds the explanation of them, saying, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. xi. He teaches us that to "Do this," is to eat bread and drink the in remembrance of the Lord's death.

cup

Here, therefore, every man who fears God and loves the Lord Jesus Christ, will consider what a crime it is in mortal and sinful men to take it upon them to sacrifice the

eternal Son of God to his Father; and to be priest, according to the order of Melchizedek, without order and without commission.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

In what sense the holy Supper may be called a sacrifice. Concerning the sacrifice of Melchizedek, and the oblation of which Malachi speaks.

Our alms, prayers, praises, thanksgivings, and in general all worship whatsoever, are called sacrifices in the holy Scripture. The holy Supper is, in this sense, likewise, called a sacrifice. The question, however, between us and our adversaries, is not whether the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice, but whether it can be truly or properly called the sacrifice of our redemption,—and whether the priests, in the Mass, do really and truly sacrifice the body of Jesus Christ for the sins of the dead and the living.

Our adversaries produce no proof, on this point, from the New Testament, where the institution of this sacrifice should be found. They only quote from the Old Testament the example of Melchizedek, who, they say, sacrificed bread and wine. (Gen. xiv. 18.) This is falsely alleged, for the passage says no such thing. Melchizedek presented bread and wine to Abraham, to refresh his troop, but he offered no sacrifice of bread and wine to God. Even the Bible of the Romish Church has proferens-not offering. We shall suppose, however, that is quoted fairly. If the Mass, then, be the sacrifice of Melchizedek, it follows that the Mass is a sacrifice of bread and wine, and not of flesh, bones, and blood. It thence also follows, that the Mass is

not a sacrifice of redemption; for bread and wine offered in sacrifice, cannot be the price of our redemption. It would be a very great error to think that Melchizedek sacrificed bread and wine for the redemption of any one. The victim, in the propitiatory sacrifices under the Old Testament, was always put to death, and without the shedding of blood, there was no propitiation, as saith the Apostle, (Heb. ix. 22); in short, it is speaking against common sense thus to argue: "Melchizedek offered bread and wine; therefore the priest sacrifices the body and blood of the Lord."

They object, also, a passage in Malachi, ch. i., wherein God promises, that in every place " incense shall be offered unto his name, and a pure offering," which is a prophecy of the calling of the Gentiles, by which God foretold that an acceptable service should be offered to him among the nations. There is nothing at all said concerning the sacrifice of the Lord's body. All that is new in this service is, that it will be performed by all nations, instead of being rendered by the Jewish people only, as in the time of Malachi.

They assert that the passover of the Old Testament was a sacrifice, and, consequently, that the holy Supper which succeeded it must likewise be a sacrifice. They speak with as much reason as if I should say, because day is clear, the night which succeeds must also be clear,-that age must be robust, because it succeeds robust youth,—that death must be life, because it succeeds life, and that the New Testament is the Old, because it succeeds the Old. The succession of one thing to another usually brings mighty changes with it. Besides, our adversaries do not allow that the Mass is a sacrifice like that of the

passover; for the passover was not sacrificed by priests, nor offered upon the altar of the temple. It was a domestic sacrifice, which private persons offered in their own houses, as appears from the