(Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, part 20)
Chapter 18. Of the Popish mass. How it not only profanes, but
annihilates the Lord's Supper.
The principal heads of this chapter are, - I. The abomination
of the Mass, sec. 1. Its manifold impiety included under five heads,
sec. 2-7. Its origin described, sec. 8, 9. II. Of the name of
sacrifice which the ancients gave to the holy Supper, sec. 10-12. An
apposite discussion on sacrifice, refitting the arguments of the
Papists for the sacrifice of the Mass, sec. 13-18. III. A summary of
the doctrine of the Christian Church respecting the sacraments,
paving the way for the subsequent discussion of the five sacraments,
falsely so called, sec. 19, 20.
Sections.
1. The chief of all the abominations set up in opposition to the
Lord's Supper is the Papal Mass. A description of it.
2. Its impiety is five-fold. 1. Its intolerable blasphemy in
substituting priests to him the only Priest. Objections of the
Papists answered.
3. Impiety of the Mass continued. 2. It overthrows the cross of
Christ by setting up an altar. Objections answered.
4. Other objections answered.
5. Impiety of the Mass continued. 3. It banishes the remembrance of
Christ's death. It crucifies Christ afresh. Objections
answered.
6. Impiety of the Mass continued. 4. It robs us of the benefit of
Christ's death.
7. Impiety of the Mass continued. 5. It abolishes the Lord's Supper.
In the Supper the Father offers Christ to us; in the Mass,
priestlings offer Christ to the Father. The Supper is a
sacrament common to all Christians; the Mass confined to one
priest.
8. The origin of the Mass. Private masses an impious profanation of
the Supper.
9. This abomination unknown to the purer Church. It has no
foundation in the word of God.
10. Second part of the chapter. Some of the ancients call the Supper
a sacrifice, but not propitiatory, as the Papists do the Mass.
This proved by passages from Augustine.
11. Some of the ancients seem to have declined too much to the
shadows of the law.
12. Great distinction to be made between the Mosaic sacrifices and
the Lord's Supper, which is called a eucharistic sacrifice.
Same rule in this discussion.
13. The terms sacrifice and priest. Different kinds of sacrifices.
1. Propitiatory. 2. Eucharistic. None propitiatory but the
death of Christ.
14. The Lord's Supper not properly called a propitiatory sacrifice,
still less can the Popish Mass be so called. Those who mutter
over the Mass cannot be called priests.
15. Their vanity proved even by Plato.
16. To the Eucharistic class of sacrifice belong all offices of
piety and charity. This species of sacrifice has no connection
with the appeasing of God.
17. Prayer, thanksgiving, and other exercises of piety, called
sacrifices. In this sense the Lord's Supper called the
eucharist. In the same sense all believers are priests.
18. Conclusion. Names given to the Mass.
19. Last part of the chapter, recapitulating the views which ought
to be held concerning Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Why the
Lord's Supper is, and Baptism is not, repeated.
20. Christians should be contented with these two sacraments. They
are abolished by the sacraments decreed by men.
1. By these and similar inventions, Satan has attempted to
adulterate and envelop the sacred Supper of Christ as with thick
darkness, that its purity might not be preserved in the Church. But
the head of this horrid abomination was, when he raised a sign by
which it was not only obscured and perverted, but altogether
obliterated and abolished, vanished away and disappeared from the
memory of man; namely, when, with most pestilential error, he
blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a
sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins. I say
nothing as to the way in which the sounder schoolmen at first
received this dogma. I leave them with their puzzling subtleties
which, however they may be defended by cavilling, are to be
repudiated by all good men, because all they do is to envelop the
brightness of the Supper in great darkness. Bidding adieu to them,
therefore, let my readers understand that I am here combating that
opinion with which the Roman Antichrist and his prophets have imbued
the whole world, viz., that the mass is a work by which the priest
who offers Christ, and the others who in the oblation receive him,
gain merit with God, or that it is an expiatory victim by which they
regain the favour of God. And this is not merely the common opinion
of the vulgar, but the very act has been so arranged as to be a kind
of propitiation, by which satisfaction is made to God for the living
and the dead. This is also expressed by the words employed, and the
same thing may be inferred from daily practice. I am aware how
deeply this plague has struck its roots; under what a semblance of
good it conceals its true character, bearing the name of Christ
before it, and making many believe that under the single name of
Mass is comprehended the whole sum of faith. But when it shall have
been most clearly proved by the word of God, that this mass, however
glossed and splendid, offers the greatest insult to Christ,
suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion,
takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates
and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death
was retained, will its roots be so deep that this most powerful axe,
the word of God, will not cut it down and destroy it? Will any
semblance be so specious that this light will not expose the lurking
evil?
2. Let us show, therefore as was proposed in the first place,
that in the mass intolerable blasphemy and insult are offered to
Christ. For he was not appointed Priest and Pontiff by the Fathers
for a time merely, as priests were appointed under the Old
Testament. Since their life was mortal, their priesthood could not
be immortal, and hence there was need of successors, who might ever
and anon be substituted in the room of the dead. But Christ being
immortal, had not the least occasion to have a vicar substituted for
him. Wherefore he was appointed by his Father a priest for ever,
after the order of Melchizedek, that he might eternally exercise a
permanent priesthood. This mystery had been typified long before in
Melchizedek, whom Scripture, after once introducing as the priest of
the living God, never afterwards mentions, as if he had had no end
of life. In this way Christ is said to be a priest after his order.
But those who sacrifice daily must necessarily give the charge of
their oblations to priests, whom they surrogate as the vicars and
successors of Christ. By this subrogation they not only rob Christ
of his honour, and take from him the prerogative of an eternal
priesthood, but attempt to remove him from the right hand of his
Father, where he cannot sit immortal without being an eternal
priest. Nor let them allege that their priestlings are not
substituted for Christ, as if he were dead, but are only substitutes
in that eternal priesthood, which therefore ceases not to exist. The
words of the apostle are too stringent to leave them any means of
evasion, viz., "They truly were many priests, because they were not
suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he
continueth ever, has an unchangeable priesthood," (Heb. 7: 23, 24.)
Yet such is their dishonesty, that to defend their impiety they arm
themselves with the example of Melchizedek. As he is said to have
"brought forth (obtulisse) bread and wine," (Gen. 14: 18,) they
infer that it was a prelude to their mass, as if there was any
resemblance between him and Christ in the offering of bread and
wine. This is too silly and frivolous to need refutation.
Melchizedek gave bread and wine to Abraham and his companions, that
he might refresh them when worn out with the march and the battle.
What has this to do with sacrifice? The humanity of the holy king is
praised by Moses: these men absurdly coin a mystery of which there
is no mention. They, however, put another gloss upon their error,
because it is immediately added, he was "priest of the most high
God." I answer, that they erroneously wrest to bread and wine what
the apostle refers to blessing. "This Melchizedek, king of Salem,
priest of the most high God, who met Abraham," "and blessed him."
Hence the same apostle (and a better interpreter cannot be desired)
infers his excellence. "Without all contradiction, the less is
blessed of the better." But if the oblation of Melchizedek was a
figure of the sacrifice of the mass, I ask, would the apostle, who
goes into the minutes details, have forgotten a matter so grave and
serious? Now, however they quibble, it is in vain for them to
attempt to destroy the argument which is adduced by the apostle
himself viz., that the right and honour of the priesthood has ceased
among mortal men, because Christ, who is immortal, is the one
perpetual priest.
3. Another iniquity chargeable on the mass is, that it sinks
and buries the cross and passion of Christ. This much, indeed, is
most certain, - the cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an
altar is erected. For if, on the cross, he offered himself in
sacrifice that he might sanctify us for ever, and purchase eternal
redemption for us, undoubtedly the power and efficacy of his
sacrifice continues without end. Otherwise, we should not think more
honourably of Christ than of the oxen and calves which were
sacrificed under the law, the offering of which is proved to have
been weak and inefficacious because often repeated. Wherefore, it
must be admitted, either that the sacrifice which Christ offered on
the cross wanted the power of eternal cleansing, or that he
performed this once for ever by his one sacrifice. Accordingly, the
apostle says, "Now once in the end of the world has he appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Again: "By the which act
we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ
once for all." Again: "For by one offering he has perfected for ever
them that are sanctified." To this he subjoins the celebrated
passage: "Now, where remission of these is, there is no more
offering for sin." The same thing Christ intimated by his latest
voice, when, on giving up the ghost, he exclaimed, "It is finished."
We are accustomed to observe the last words of the dying as
oracular. Christ, when dying, declares, that by his one sacrifice is
perfected and fulfilled whatever was necessary to our salvation. To
such a sacrifice, whose perfection he so clearly declared, shall we,
as if it were imperfect, presume daily to append innumerable
sacrifices? Since the sacred word of God not only affirms, but
proclaims and protests, that this sacrifice was once accomplished,
and remains eternally in force, do not those who demand another
charge it with imperfection and weakness? But to what tends the mass
which has been established, that a hundred thousand sacrifices may
be performed every day, but just to bury and suppress the passion of
our Lord, in which he offered himself to his Father as the only
victim? Who but a blind man does not see that it was Satanic
audacity to oppose a truth so clear and transparent? I am not
unaware of the impostures by which the father of lies is wont to
cloak his frauds viz., that the sacrifices are not different or
various, but that the one sacrifice is repeated. Such smoke is
easily dispersed. The apostle, during his whole discourse, contends
not only that there are no other sacrifices, but that that one was
once offered, and is no more to be repeated. The more subtle try to
make their escape by a still narrower loophole, viz., that it is not
repetition, but application. But there is no more difficulty in
confuting this sophism also. For Christ did not offer himself once,
in the view that his sacrifice should be daily ratified by new
oblations, but that by the preaching of the gospel and the
dispensation of the sacred Supper, the benefit of it should be
communicated to us. Thus Paul says, that "Christ, our passover, is
sacrificed for us," and bids us "keep the feast," (1 Cor. 5: 7, 8.)
The method, I say, in which the cross of Christ is duly applied to
us is when the enjoyment is communicated to us, and we receive it
with true faith.
4. But it is worth while to hear on what other foundation
besides they rear up their sacrifice of the mass. To this end they
drag in the prophecy of Malachi, in which the Lord promises that "in
every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure
offering," (Mal. 1: 11.) As if it were new or unusual for the
prophets, when they speak of the calling of the Gentiles, to
designate the spiritual worship of God to which they call them, by
the external rites of the law, more familiarly to intimate to the
men of their age that they were to be called into the true
fellowship of religion, just as in general they are wont to describe
the truth which has been exhibited by the gospel by the types of
their own age. Thus they use going up to Jerusalem for conversion to
the Lord, the bringing of all kinds of gifts for the adoration of
God - dreams and visions for the more ample knowledge with which
believers were to he endued in the kingdom of Christ. The passage
they quote from Malachi resembles one in Isaiah, in which the
prophet speaks of three altars to be erected in Assyria, Egypt, and
Judea. First, I ask, whether or not they grant that this prophecy is
fulfilled in the kingdom of Christ? Secondly, Where are those
altars, or when were they ever erected? Thirdly, Do they suppose
that a single temple is destined for a single kingdom, as was that
of Jerusalem? If they ponder these things, they will confess I
think, that the prophets under types adapted to his age, prophesied
concerning the propagation of the spiritual worship of God over the
whole world. This is the answer which we give them; but, as obvious
examples everywhere occur in the Scripture, I am not anxious to give
a longer enumeration; although they are miserably deluded in this
also, that they acknowledge no sacrifice but that of the mass,
whereas in truth believers now sacrifice to God and offer him a pure
offering, of which we shall speak by and by.
5. I now come to the third part of the mass, in regard to
which, we are to explain how it obliterates the true and only death
of Christ, and drives it from the memory of men. For as among men,
the confirmation of a testament depends upon the death of the
testator, so also the testament by which he has bequeathed to us
remission of sins and eternal righteousness, our Lord has confirmed
by his death. Those who dare to make any change or innovation on
this testament deny his death, and hold it as of no moment. Now,
what is the mass but a new and altogether different testament? What?
Does not each mass promise a new forgiveness of sins, a new purchase
of righteousness so that now there are as many testaments as there
are masses? Therefore, let Christ come again, and, by another death,
make this new testament; or rather, by innumerable deaths, ratify
the innumerable testaments of the mass. Said I not true, then, at
the outset, that the only true death of Christ is obliterated by the
mass? For what is the direct aim of the mass but just to put Christ
again to death, if that were possible? For, as the apostle says,
"Where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of
the testator," (Heb. 9: 16.) The novelty of the mass bears, on the
face of it, to be a testament of Christ, and therefore demands his
death. Besides, it is necessary that the victim which is offered be
slain and immolated. If Christ is sacrificed at each mass, he must
be cruelly slain every moment in a thousand places. This is not my
argument, but the apostle's: "Nor yet that he should offer himself
often;" "for then must he often have suffered since the foundation
of the world," (Heb. 9: 25, 26.) I admit that they are ready with an
answer, by which they even charge us with calumny; for they say that
we object to them what they never thought, and could not even think.
We know that the life and death of Christ are not at all in their
hand. Whether they mean to slay him, we regard not: our intention is
only to show the absurdity consequent on their impious and accursed
dogma. This I demonstrate from the mouth of the apostle. Though they
insist a hundred times that this sacrifice is bloodless,
("anaimakton",) I will reply, that it depends not on the will of man
to change the nature of sacrifice, for in this way the sacred and
inviolable institution of God would fall. Hence it follows, that the
principle of the apostle stands firm, "without shedding of blood is
no remission," (Heb. 9: 22.)
6. The fourth property of the mass which we are to consider is,
that it robs us of the benefit which redounded to us from the death
of Christ, while it prevents us from recognising it and thinking of
it. For who can think that he has been redeemed by the death of
Christ when he sees a new redemption in the mass? Who can feel
confident that his sins have been remitted when he sees a new
remission? It will not do to say that the only ground on which we
obtain forgiveness of sins in the mass is, because it has been
already purchased by the death of Christ. For this is just
equivalent to saying that we are redeemed by Christ on the condition
that we redeem ourselves. For the doctrine which is disseminated by
the ministers of Satan, and which, in the present day, they defend
by clamour, fire, and sword, is, that when we offer Christ to the
Father in the mass, we, by this work of oblation, obtain remission
of sins, and become partakers of the sufferings of Christ. What is
now left for the sufferings of Christ, but to be an example of
redemption, that we may thereby learn to be our own redeemers?
Christ himself when he seals our assurance of pardon in the Supper,
does not bid his disciples stop short at that act, but sends them to
the sacrifice of his death; intimating, that the Supper is the
memento or, as it is commonly expressed, the memorial from which
they may learn that the expiatory victim by which God was to be
appeased was to be offered only once. For it is not sufficient to
hold that Christ is the only victim, without adding that his is the
only immolation, in order that our faith may be fixed to his cross.
7. I come now to the crowning point, viz., that the sacred
Supper, on which the Lord left the memorial of his passion formed
and engraved, was taken away, hidden and destroyed when the mass was
erected. While the Supper itself is a gift of God, which was to be
received with thanksgiving, the sacrifice of the mass pretends to
give a price to God to be received as satisfaction. As widely as
giving differs from receiving, does sacrifice differ from the
sacrament of the Supper. But herein does the wretched ingratitude of
man appear, - that wile a the liberality of the divine goodness
ought to have been recognised, and thanks returned, he makes God to
be his debtor. The sacrament promised that by the death of Christ we
were not only restored to life once but constantly quickened,
because all the parts of our salvation were then completed. The
sacrifice of the mass uses a very different language, viz., that
Christ must be sacrificed daily, in order that he may lend something
to us. The Supper was to be dispensed at the public meeting of the
Church, to remind us of the communion by which we are all united in
Christ Jesus. This communion the sacrifice of the mass dissolves,
and tears asunder. For after the heresy prevailed that there behaved
to be priests to sacrifice for the people, as if the Supper had been
handed over to them, it ceased to be communicated to the assembly of
the faithful according to the command of the Lord. Entrance has been
given to private masses, which more resemble a kind of
excommunication than that communion ordained by the Lord, when the
priestling, about to devour his victim apart, separates himself from
the whole body of the faithful. That there may be no mistake, I call
it a private mass whenever there is no partaking of the Lord's
Supper among believers, though, at the same time, a great multitude
of persons may be present.
8. The origin of the name of Mass I have never been able
certainly to ascertain. It seems probable that it was derived from
the offerings which were collected. Hence the ancients usually speak
of it in the plural number. But without raising any controversy as
to the name, I hold that private masses are diametrically opposed to
the institution at Christ, and are, therefore, an impious
profanation of the sacred Supper. For what did the Lord enjoin? Was
it not to take and divide amongst ourselves? What does Paul teach as
to the observance of this command? Is it not that the breaking of
bread is the communion of body and blood? (1 Cor. 10: 16.)
Therefore, when one person takes without distributing, where is the
resemblance? But that one acts in the name of the whole Church. By
what command? Is it not openly to mock God when one privately seizes
for himself what ought to have been distributed among a number? But
as the words both of our Saviour and of Paul, are sufficiently
clear, we must briefly conclude, that wherever there is no breaking
of bread for the communion of the faithful, there is no Supper of
the Lord, but a false and preposterous imitation at the Supper. But
false imitation is adulteration. Moreover, the adulteration of this
high ordinance is not without impiety. In private masses, therefore,
there is an impious abuse: and as in religion, one fault ever and
anon begets another, after that custom of offering without communion
once crept in, they began gradually to make innumerable masses in
all the separate corners of the churches, and to draw the people
hither and thither, when they ought to have formed one meeting, and
thus recognised the mystery of their unity. Let them now go and deny
their idolatry when they exhibit the bread in their masses, that it
may be adored for Christ. In vain do they talk of those promises of
the presence of Christ, which, however they may be understood, were
certainly not given that impure and profane men might form the body
of Christ as often as they please, and for whatever abuse they
please; but that believers, while, with religious observance, they
follow the command of Christ in celebrating the Supper, might enjoy
the true participation of it.
9. We may add, that this perverse course was unknown to the
purer Church. For however the more impudent among our opponents may
attempt to gloss the matter, it is absolutely certain that all
antiquity is opposed to them, as has been above demonstrated in
other instances, and may be more surely known by the diligent
reading of the Fathers. But before I conclude, I ask our missal
doctors, seeing they know that obedience is better than sacrifice,
and God commands us to listen to his voice rather than to offer
sacrifice, (1 Sam. 15: 22,) - how they can believe this method of
sacrificing to be pleasing, to God, since it is certain that he does
not command it, and they cannot support it by one syllable of
Scripture? Besides, when they hear the apostle declaring that "no
man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as
was Aaron," so also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high
priest, but he that said unto him, "Thou art my Son: this day have I
begotten thee," (Heb. 5: 4, 5.) They must either prove God to be the
author and founder of their priesthood, or confess that there is no
honour from God in an office, into which, without being called, they
have rushed with wicked temerity. They cannot produce one iota of
Scripture in support of their priesthood. And must not the
sacrifices be vain, since they cannot be offered without a priest?
10. Should any one here obtrude concise sentences of the
ancients, and contend, on their authority, that the sacrifice which
is performed in the Supper is to be understood differently from what
we have explained it, let this be our brief reply, - that if the
question relates to the approval of the fiction of sacrifice, as
imagined by Papists in the mass, there is nothing in the Fathers to
countenance the sacrilege. They indeed use the term sacrifice, but
they, at the same time, explain that they mean nothing more than the
commemoration of that one true sacrifice which Christ, our only
sacrifice, (as they themselves everywhere proclaim,) performed on
the cross. "The Hebrews," says Augustine, (Cont. Faust. Lib. 20 c,
18,) "in the victims of beasts which they offered to God, celebrated
the prediction of the future victim which Christ offered: Christians
now celebrate the commemoration of a finished sacrifice by the
sacred oblation and participation of the body of Christ." Here he
certainly teaches the same doctrine which is delivered at greater
length in the Treatise on Faith, addressed to Peter the deacon,
whoever may have been the author. The words are, "Hold most firmly
and have no doubt at all, that the Only Begotten became incarnate
for us, that he offered himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to
God for a sweet-smelling savour; to whom, with the Father and the
Holy Spirit, in the time of the Old Testament, animals were
sacrificed, and to whom now, with the Father and the Holy Spirit,
(with whom there is one Godhead,) the holy Church, throughout the
whole world, ceases not to offer the sacrifice of bread and wine.
For, in those carnal victims, there was a typifying of the flesh of
Christ, which he himself was to offer for our sins, and of the blood
which he was to shed for the forgiveness of sins. But in that
sacrifice there is thanksgiving and commemoration of the flesh of
Christ which he offered for us, and of the blood which he shed for
us." Hence Augustine himself, in several passages, (Ep. 120, ad
Honorat. Cont. Advers. Legis.,) explains, that it is nothing else
than a sacrifice of praise. In short, you will find in his writings,
passim, that the only reason for which the Lord's Supper is called a
sacrifice is, because it is a commemoration, an image, a testimonial
of that singular, true, and only sacrifice by which Christ expiated
our guilt. For there is a memorable passage, (De Trinitate, Lib. 4
c. 24,) where, after discoursing of the only sacrifice, he thus
concludes: "Since, in a sacrifice, four things are considered, viz.,
to whom it is offered, by whom, what and for whom, the same one true
Mediator, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, remains
one with him to whom he offered, made himself one with those for
whom he offered, is himself the one who offered, and the one thing
which he offered." Chrysostom speaks to the same effect. They so
strongly claim the honour of the priesthood for Christ alone, that
Augustine declares it would be equivalent to Antichrist for any one
to make a bishop to be an intercessor between God and man, (August.
Cont. Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 8.)
11. And yet we deny not that in the Supper the sacrifice of
Christ is so vividly exhibited as almost to set the spectacle of the
cross before our eyes, just as the apostle says to the Galatians,
that Jesus Christ had been evidently set forth before their eyes,
when the preaching of the crossway delivered to them, (Gal. 3: 1.)
But because I see that those ancient writers have wrested this
commemoration to a different purpose than was accordant to the
divine institution, (the Supper somehow seemed to them to present
the appearance of a repeated or at least renewed, immolation,)
nothing can be safer for the pious than to rest satisfied with the
pure and simple ordinance of God, whose Supper it is said to be just
because his authority alone ought to appear in it. Seeing that they
retained a pious and orthodoxy view of the whole ordinance, and I
cannot discover that they wished to derogate in the least from the
one sacrifice of the Lord, I cannot charge them with any impiety,
and yet I think they cannot be excused from having erred somewhat in
the mode of action. They imitated the Jewish mode of sacrificing
more closely than either Christ had ordained, or the nature of the
gospel allowed. The only thing, therefore for which they may be
justly censured is, that preposterous analogy, that, not contented
with the simple and genuine institution of Christ, they declined too
much to the shadows of the law.
12. Any who will diligently consider, will perceive that the
word of the Lord makes this distinction between the Mosaic
sacrifices and our eucharist - that while the former represented to
the Jewish people the same efficacy of the death of Christ which is
now exhibited to us, in the Supper, yet the form of representation
was different. There the Levitical priests were ordered to typify
the sacrifice which Christ was to accomplish; a victim was placed to
act as a substitute for Christ himself; an altar was erected on
which it was to be sacrificed; the whole, in short, was so conducted
as to bring under the eye an image of the sacrifice which was to be
offered to God in expiation. But now that the sacrifice has been
performed, the Lord has prescribed a different method to us, viz.,
to transmit the benefit of the sacrifice offered to him by his Son
to his believing people, The Lord, therefore, has given us a table
at which we may feast, not an altar on which a victim may be
offered; he has not consecrated priests to sacrifice, but ministers
to distribute a sacred feast. The more sublime and holy this mystery
is the more religiously and reverently ought it to be treated.
Nothing, therefore, is, safer than to banish all the boldness of
human sense, and adhere solely to what Scripture delivers. And
certainly, if we reflect that it is the Supper of the Lord and not
of men, why do we allow ourselves to be turned aside one
nail's-breadth from Scripture by any authority of man, or length of
prescription? Accordingly, the apostle, in desiring completely to
remove the vices which had crept into the Church of Corinth, as the
most expeditious method recalls them to the institution itself,
showing that thence a perpetual rule ought to be derived.
13. Lest any quarrelsome person should raise a dispute with us
as to the terms, "sacrifice" and "priest", I will briefly explain
what in the whole of this discussion we mean by sacrifice, and what
by priest. Some, on what rational ground I see not, extend the term
sacrifice to all sacred ceremonies and religious acts. We know that
by the uniform use of Scripture, the name of sacrifice is given to
what the Greeks call at one time "thusia", at another "prosfora", at
another "telete". This, in its general acceptation, includes
everything whatever that is offered to God. Wherefore, we ought to
distinguish, but so that the distinction may derive its analogy from
the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, under whose shadows the Lord was
pleased to represent to his people the whole reality of sacrifices.
Though these were various in form, they may all be referred to two
classes. For either an oblation for sin was made by a certain
species of satisfaction, by which the penalty was redeemed before
God, or it was a symbol and attestation of religion and divine
worship, at one time in the way of supplication to demand the favour
of God; at another, by way of thanksgiving, to testify gratitude to
God for benefits received; at another as a simple exercise of piety
to renew the sanction of the covenant, to which latter branch,
burnt-offerings, and libations, oblations, first fruits, and
peace-offerings, referred. Hence, let us also distribute them into
two classes. The other class, with the view of explaining, let us
call "latreutikon", and "sebastikon", as consisting of the
veneration and worship which believers both owe and render to God;
or, if you prefer it, let us call it "eucharistikon", since it is
exhibited to God by none but those who, enriched with his boundless
benefits, offer themselves and all their actions to him in return.
The other class let us call propitiatory or expiatory. A sacrifice
of expiation is one whose object is to appease the wrath of God, to
satisfy his justice, and thereby wipe and wash away the sins, by
which the sinner being cleansed and restored to purity, may return
to favour with God. Hence the name which was given in the Law to the
victims which were offered in expiation of sin, (Exod. 29: 36;) not
that they were adequate to regain the favour of God, and wipe away
guilt, but because they typified the true sacrifice of this nature,
which was at length performed in reality by Christ alone; by him
alone, because no other could, and once, because the efficacy and
power of the one sacrifice performed by Christ is eternal, as he
declared by his voice, when he said, "It is finished;" that is, that
everything necessary to regain the favour of the Father, to procure
forgiveness of sins, righteousness and salvation, that all this was
performed and consummated by his one oblation, and that hence
nothing was wanting. No place was left for another sacrifice.
14. Wherefore, I conclude, that it is an abominable insult and
intolerable blasphemy, as well against Christ as the sacrifice,
which, by his death, he performed for us on the cross, for any one
to think of repeating the oblation, of purchasing the forgiveness of
sins, of propitiating God, and obtaining justification. But what
else is done in the Mass than to make us partakers of the sufferings
of Christ by means of a new oblation? And that there might be no
limit to their extravagance, they have deemed it little to say, that
it properly becomes a common sacrifice for the whole Church, without
adding, that it is at their pleasure to apply it specially to this
one or that, as they choose; or rather, to any one who is willing to
purchase their merchandise from them for a price paid. Moreover, as
they could not come up to the estimate of Judas, still, that they
might in some way refer to their author, they make the resemblance
to consist in the member. He sold for thirty pieces of silver: they,
according to the French method of computation, sell for thirty
pieces of brass. He did it once: they as often as a purchaser is met
with. We deny that they are priests in this sense, namely, that by
such oblations they intercede with God for the people, that by
propitiating God they make expiation for sins. Christ is the only
Pontiff and Priest of the New Testament: to him all priestly offices
were transferred, and in him they closed and terminated. Even had
Scripture made no mention of the eternal priesthood of Christ, yet,
as God, after abolishing those ancient sacrifices, appointed no new
priest, the argument of the apostle remains invincible, "No man
taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as
was Aaron," (Heb. 5: 4.) How, then, can those sacrilegious men, who
by their own account are murderers of Christ, dare to call
themselves the priests of the living God?
15. There is a most elegant passage in the second book of
Plato's Republic. Speaking of ancient expiations, and deriding the
foolish confidence of wicked and iniquitous men, who thought that by
them, as a kind of veils, they concealed their crimes from the gods;
and, as if they had made a paction with the gods, indulged
themselves more securely, he seems accurately to describe the use of
the expiation of the mass, as it exists in the world in the present
day. All know that it is unlawful to defraud and circumvent another.
To do injustice to widows, to pillage pupils, to molest the poor, to
seize the goods of others by wicked arts, to get possession of any
mans succession by fraud and perjury, to oppress by violence and
tyrannical terror, all admit to be impious. How then do so many, as
if assured of impunity, dare to do all those things? Undoubtedly, if
we duly consider, we will find that the only thing which gives them
so much courage is, that by the sacrifice of the mass as a price
paid, they trust that they will satisfy God, or at least will easily
find a means of transacting with him. Plato next proceeds to deride
the gross stupidity of those who think by such expiations to redeem
the punishments which they must otherwise suffer after death. And
what is meant by anniversaries and the greater part of masses in the
present day, but just that those who through life have been the most
cruel tyrants, or most rapacious plunderers or adepts in all kinds
of wickedness, may, as if redeemed at this price, escape the fire of
purgatory?
16. Under the other kind of sacrifice, which we have called
eucharistic, are included all the offices of charity, by which,
while we embrace our brethren, we honour the Lord himself in his
members; in fine, all our prayers, praises, thanksgivings, and every
act of worship which we perform to God. All these depend on the
greater sacrifice with which we dedicate ourselves, soul and body,
to be a holy temple to the Lord. For it is not enough that our
external acts be framed to obedience, but we must dedicate and
consecrate first ourselves, and, secondly, all that we have, so that
all which is in us may be subservient to his glory, and be stirred
up to magnify it. This kind of sacrifice has nothing to do with
appeasing God, with obtaining remission of sins, with procuring
justification, but is wholly employed in magnifying and extolling
God, since it cannot be grateful and acceptable to God unless at the
hand of those who, having received forgiveness of sins, have already
been reconciled and freed from guilt. This is so necessary to the
Church, that it cannot be dispensed with. Therefore, it will endure
for ever, so long as the people of God shall endure, as we have
already seen above from the prophet. For in this sense we may
understand the prophecy, "From the rising of the sun, even unto the
going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles;
and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure
offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the
Lord of hosts," (Malachi 1: 11;) so far are we from doing away with
this sacrifice. Thus Paul beseeches us, by the mercies of God, to
present our bodies "a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God,"
our "reasonable service," (Rom. 12: 1.) Here he speaks very
significantly when he adds, that this service is reasonable, for he
refers to the spiritual mode of worshipping God, and tacitly opposes
it to the carnal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. Thus to do good and
communicate are called sacrifices with which God is well-pleased,
(Heb. 13: 16.) Thus the kindness of the Philippians in relieving
Paul's want is called "an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice
acceptable, well-pleasing to God," (Phil. 4: 18;) and thus all the
good works of believers are called spiritual sacrifices.
17. And why do I enumerate? This form of expression is
constantly occurring in Scripture. Nay, even while the people of God
were kept under the external tutelage of the law, the prophets
clearly expressed that under these carnal sacrifices there was a
reality which is common both to the Jewish people and the Christian
Church. For this reason David prayed, "Let my prayer ascend forth
before thee as incense," (Psalm 141: 2.) And Hosea gives the name of
"calves of the lips" (Hos. 14: 3) to thanksgivings, which David
elsewhere calls "sacrifices of praise;" the apostle imitating him,
speaks of offering "the sacrifice of praise," which he explains to
mean, "the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name," (Heb. 13:
15.) This kind of sacrifice is indispensable in the Lord's Supper,
in which, while we show forth his death, and give him thanks, we
offer nothing but the sacrifice of praise. From this office of
sacrificing, all Christians are called "a royal priesthood," because
by Christ we offer that sacrifice of praise of which the apostle
speaks, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name, (1 Peter
2: 9; Heb. 13: 15.) We do not appear with our gifts in the presence
of God without an intercessor. Christ, our Mediator, by whose
intervention we offer ourselves and our all to the Father; he is our
High Priest, who, having entered into the upper sanctuary, opens up
an access for us; he the altar on which we lay our gifts, that
whatever we do attempts we may attempt in him; he it is, I say, who
"has made us kings and priests unto God and his Father," (Rev. 1:
6.)
18. What remains but for the blind to see, the deaf to hear,
children even to perceive this abomination of the mass, which, held
forth in a golden cup, has so intoxicated all the kings and nations
of the earth, from the highest to the lowest; so struck them with
stupor and giddiness, that, duller than the lower animals, they have
placed the vessel of their salvation in this fatal vortex. Certainly
Satan never employed a more powerful engine to assail and storm the
kingdom of Christ. This is the Helen for whom the enemies of the
truth in the present day fight with so much rage, fury, and
atrocity; and truly the Helen with whom they commit spiritual
whoredom, the most execrable of all. I am not here laying my little
finger on those gross abuses by which they might pretend that the
purity of their sacred mass is profaned; on the base traffic which
they ply; the sordid gain which they make; the rapacity with which
they satiate their avarice. I only indicate, and that in few and
simple terms, how very sacred the sanctity of the mass is, how well
it has for several ages deserved to be admired and held in
veneration! It were a greater work to illustrate these great
mysteries as they deserve, and I am unwilling to meddle with their
obscene impurities, which are daily before the eyes and faces of
all, that it may be understood that the mass, taken in the most
choice form in which it can be exhibited, without any appendages,
teems from head to foot with all kinds of impiety, blasphemy,
idolatry, and sacrilege.
19. My readers have here a compendious view of all that I have
thought it of importance to know concerning these two sacraments
which have been delivered to the Christian Church, to be used from
the beginning of the new dispensation to the end of the world,
Baptism being a kind of entrance into the Church, an initiation into
the faith, and the Lord's Supper the constant ailment by which
Christ spiritually feeds his family of believers. Wherefore, as
there is but one God, one faith, one Christ, one Church, which is
his body, so Baptism is one, and is not repeated. But the Supper is
ever and anon dispensed, to intimate, that those who are once
allured into the Church are constantly fed by Christ. Besides these
two, no other has been instituted by God, and no other ought to be
recognised by the assembly of the faithful. That sacraments are not
to be instituted and set up by the will of men, is easily understood
by him who remembers what has been above with sufficient plainness
expounded, viz., that the sacraments have been appointed by God to
instruct us in his promise, and testify his good-will towards us;
and who, moreover, considers, that the Lord has no counsellor, (Isa.
40: 13; Rom. 11: 34;) who can give us any certainty as to his will,
or assure us how he is disposed towards us, what he is disposed to
give, and what to deny? From this it follows, that no one can set
forth a sign which is to be a testimonial of his will, and of some
promise. He alone can give the sign, and bear witness to himself. I
will express it more briefly perhaps in homelier, but also in
clearer terms, - There never can be a sacrament without a promise of
salvation. All men collected into one cannot, of themselves give us
any promise of salvation. And, therefore, they cannot, of
themselves, give out and set up a sacrament.
20. With these two, therefore, let the Christian Church be
contented, and not only not admit or acknowledge any third at
present, but not even desire or expect it even until the end of the
world. For though to the Jews were given, besides his ordinary
sacraments, others differing somewhat according to the nature of the
times, (as the manna, the water gushing from the rock, the brazen
serpent, and the like,) by this variety they were reminded not to
stop short at such figures, the state of which could not be durable,
but to expect from God something better, to endure without decay and
without end. Our case is very different. To us Christ has been
revealed. In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge, (Col. 2: 3,) in such richness and abundance, that to ask
or hope for any new addition to these treasures is truly to offend
God and provoke him against us. It behaves us to hunger after Christ
only, to seek him, look to him, learn of him, and learn again, until
the arrival of the great day on which the Lord will fully manifest
the glory of his kingdom, and exhibit himself as he is to our
admiring eyes (1 John 3: 2.) And, for this reason, this age of ours
is designated in Scriptures by the last hour, the last days, the
last times, that no one may deceive himself with the vain
expectation of some new doctrine or revelations. Our heavenly
Father, who "at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time
past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken
unto us" by his beloved Son, who alone can manifest, and, in fact,
has fully manifested, the Father, in so far as is of importance to
us, while we now see him through a mirror. Now since men have been
denied the power of making new sacraments in the Church of God, it
were to be wished that in those which are of God, there should be
the least possible admixture of human invention. For just as when
water is infused the wine is diluted and when leaven is put in, the
whole mass is leavened, so the purity of the ordinances of God is
impaired, whenever man makes any addition of his own. And yet we see
how far the sacraments as at present used have degenerated from
their genuine purity. There is everywhere more than enough of pomp,
ceremony and gesticulation, while no account is taken or mention
made, of the word of God, without which, even the sacraments
themselves are not sacraments. Nay, in such a crowd, the very
ceremonies ordained by God cannot raise their head, but lie as it
were oppressed. In Baptism, as we have elsewhere justly complained,
how little is seen of that which alone ought to shine and be
conspicuous there, I mean Baptism itself? The Supper was altogether
buried when it was turned into the Mass. The utmost is that it is
seen once a year, but in a garbled, mutilated, and lacerated form.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 4
(continued in part 21...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: cvin4-20.txt
.