atonement; let it not be said, that the substance of bread and wine is destroyed; for this is not true, as we have proved before: Let us admit, that the substance of bread and wine ceaseth, but then something greater and more substantial is substituted in the stead of them, to wit, the flesh and blood of Christ, and thus we will receive more of God, than we give him to make atonement, contrary to the nature of sacrifices of atonement: and then also the body of Christ, when offered to obtain forgiveness must be consumed; "Without shedding of blood there is no remission," saith Paul, Heb. ix. 22. How then can the mass, which is an unbloody sacrifice, procure forgiveness? (g) Add to this, that the sacrifice of the mass, being offered day by day, cannot procure forgiveness, any more than the legal sacrifices, which did not make atonement, because they were repeated. See Heb. x. 12, 13.

2. The second particular, in which the Lord's supper differs from the Popish mass is, that the supper teacheth us, "that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, who according to his human nature, is now not on earth, but in heaven at the right hand of God his Father." Believers are ingrafted into Christ by the Spirit in the supper, because they eat and drink his flesh and blood, not in a bodily manner, but spiritually and sacramentally, as we have explained this doctrine upon the seventy-sixth question. And the Lord's supper directs us thus to Christ in heaven; for it is "in remembrance of him, and in order to show forth his death till he come," agreeably to 1 Cor. xi. 24-26. But the mass teacheth differently from this, asserting that "Christ is bodily present under the forms of bread and wine." How then can the Romanists find the mass in the Lord's supper? For we have proved at large on the former Lord's day, that Christ is not bodily present under the forms of bread and wine, and that this is inconsistent with the nature of the supper.

3. The third particular, in which the mass differs from the sup per, according to the instructor is, "that the supper, testifieth to us, that since Christ is in heaven, he must there be worshipped by us." For if the supper direct us to Christ, as hath been now proved, the hearts of the communicants must be lifted up, as they cried to them of old; we must then also "seek" in the supper, "the things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God," according to Col. iii. 1, that we may be blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ," as the apostle speaks, Eph. i. 3. But the mass teacheth, contrary to the nature of the supper, that "Christ must be worshipped under the forms of bread and wine:" and therefore the mass is false, yea, altogether a mistake;'

for although we should seek the mass in the supper, we should not find it, but should miss it.

These things being all duly considered, we must conclude that "the mass is at bottom nothing else, than

1. A denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ." For Christ hath by his one sacrifice purchased perfect forgiveness of sins, as we have shown before; that sacrifice was indeed of infinite value, being "God's own blood," Acts xx. 28. "The blood of the Son of God, which cleanseth us from all sins," 1 John i. 7, which brings in an everlasting righteousness and redemption," Dan. ix. 24. Heb. ix. 12. When we now say, that forgiveness is obtained by the sacrifice of the mass, and not by the sacrifice and sufferings of Christ on the cross, unless he be still daily offered up in the mass, do we not then deny that there is a perfect forgiveness of sins by the one sacrifice of Christ, and thus his sacrifice itself? The sacrifices of the Old Testament were shadows of the one sacrifice of Christ therefore when we continue to offer sacrifices day by day, 1o obtain the pardon of sins, we deny the body of the shadows, the one sacrifice of Christ.

The Papists cry out against this, and say, that the sacrifice of the mass is a sacrifice of application, and consequently no denial of Christ's sacrifice on the cross; but then the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is not the same with the sacrifice of the mass, but altogether different from it: and so Christ, who was offered on the cross, is not offered in the mass. The sacrifice of the mass cannot apply the sacrifice of Christ; for a sacrifice is offered to God, but the application is made to men. If the sacrifice of Christ must be applied by another sacrifice, then his death, in which he was offered as a sacrifice, must be applied by another death. The sacrifice of Christ is applied by his exaltation, agreeably to Rom iv. 25. v. 10. Acts v. 31, by his word and sacraments, Eph. v. 26. and by his Spirit. See Cor. vi. 11.

2. "The mass is also at bottom an accursed idolatry :" for the Romanists (a) celebrate the mass, the chief ceremony of their reli gion, in honour of the saints, to obtain their intercession with God. To bestow the chief honour of religion upon the saints, who are but creatures, is surely an accursed idolatry. (b) They worship that which is not God, when we must worship God only, as Christ saith, Matt. iv. 10, for they worship bread. Is it not an accursed idolatry to worship bread as God? (c) They say indeed that it is not bread, after it hath been blessed, but God himself; yet the form of bread is Dot God, and they nevertheless require that men should worship

that form. It is surely an abominable idolatry to worship mere accidents, which have no subsistence. (d) Although it were granted to the church of Rome, that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, it is the only a made God; and when they worship that, they practise heathenish idolatry; for "the heathens served them which by nature are no Gods," as Paul speaks, Gal. iv. 8. (e) According to the opinion of the Popish priests themselves, the people must unavoidably commit shameful idolatry; for if the bread and wine should not be transubstantiated, which may happen a thousand times; to wit, when the priest hath not been properly baptized, nor properly authorized by another priest, who hath been properly baptized and properly authorized, and when he hath not a steadfast design to make flesh and blood of the bread and wine, then transubstantiation fails, the bread and wine are not changed. When now the people worship it, do they not then commit idolatry? The people indeed can never be certain on account of all the requisite conditions of transubstantiation, that the bread and wine are changed, and they can therefore never worship it in faith, and without sin; for "all that is not of faith is sin." (f) And how can the Papists be so displeased with us, when we call the mass an accursed idolatry? Is not all idolatry accursed of God? There hath never been a more detestable idolatry heard of than that which the Papists practise with the mass. Peruse every book, ancient and modern, and see whether ye can find a single instance, that men have worshipped that which they ate, and voided. And nevertheless the Romanists do this. Justly therefore may we say of them, what Paul saith of the heathens in the text "that what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God."

How dare these men to mutter and abuse the word of God so shamefully, that they dare also to defend this abomination, (a) with the example of Melchizedec, who "brought forth bread and wine," Gen. xiv. 18. Did he then celebrate the mass? was the bread and wine then also flesh and blood? do we read that he offered bread and wine? no, but he brought bread and wine forth, not to offer them, but to refresh Abraham and his weary soldiers. (b) They think that they can find a cloak for their shame in the divine prediction, Mai. i. 11, "In every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering." But if we must understand this of a proper and bodily offering, how then will Daniel's prediction be fulfilled, that "the Messiah should cause the oblation to cease?" Dan. ix. 27. And therefore we must judge that Mal. i. 11, speaks of the spiritual sacrifices of believers, which are exhibited according VOL. II.

Q

1 Peter to the style of the Old Testament. See Psalm exli. 2. ii. 5. (c) It is still more shameless that the Romanists attempt to defend themselves with the words of the Saviour, when he saith "do this;" but doth he say "offer this?" is doing of every kind of fering? surely no: but the Lord said do this, when he gave those who sat at meat with him bread and wine, to eat and drink, and therefore do this, is eat and drink this "in remembrance of me." (d) Can we indeed forbear to ridicule the Romanists, when they attempt to establish their mass by citing Acts xiii. 2, "As they minis tered to the Lord, and fasted?" How can they be so void of understanding? must we, where it is said, minister to the Lord, read minister to the mass? what a fantastical bible shall we have, if we proceed thus! Forsooth, the church of Rome hath power to say, this is the sense of that passage, and we may not gainsay her. Is this wonderful? she can change bread into a god; why then should she not be able to change the sense of the scripture also? She is indeed eminently skilful in this art, and hath rendered the passage, Acts xiii. 2, in a French translation, "They ministered to the mass." Is not this masterly? (e) But they say, the ancient fathers called the supper a sacrifice. We do not deny it but is it therefore a sacri fice? must the ancients be heard, where the word of God is silent? But how dare these men appeal to the ancients, when they know that transubstantiation is a late invention, as we have shown on the foregoing Lord's day? The ancients having no knowledge of this new heresy, and not thinking that men would contrive such a tran. substantiation and mass, called the supper, without any suspicion, a sacrifice by a sacramental phraseology, because it is a sign and seal of Christ's sacrifice; and perhaps also, because believers brought their gifts as sacrificial gifts, to be used in the supper, and likewise because they solemnly engaged there to offer themselves up unto God, in order to serve him.

:

II. But for whom was the Lord's supper instituted? for the living and the dead, that it might be offered up for them, in order to procure the pardon of their sins, as the Papists assert? By no means; none but the living can use it, and it was instituted for them; not for children, who cannot discern the body of the Lord, but for adults; yet this seal of the covenant is not for those, who live only a bodily life, but for those who have a spiritual life also; for it is a spiritual food, which none but those who are spiritually alive can receive : "Christ hath ordained this meat only for the faithful," saith our form for the supper. The supper is a seal of the righteousness of faith we must therefore be partakers of that righteousness, if we

shall take the seal of it to ourselves: but must we have an assurance that we are in a state of grace, and possess that righteosness of faith, in order that we may have a right to this feast? and must a person who is not so assured, abstain from this sacrament? certainly no. It would be good to possess assurance upon indisputable grounds; we sould then receive the supper with more faith, and to greater advantage; but those who do not possess assurance can also have a right; for a person may be a believer, and yet not be fully and clearly conscious that he is There are among the people of God, those who are new beginners, and such as are further advanced; there are weak and strong men; one while "God makes their mountain to stand strong," so that they can say, "I shall never be moved;" but anon "he hides his face again, and they are troubled," Psalm xxx. 6, 7. "They who go down to the dust, and they who cannot keep their souls alive," as well as they who are fat on the earth, "have the promise," that they shall eat," Psalm xxii. 29. Not only "the old," but also "the young are invited to flow together to the goodness of the Lord," Jer. xxxi. 12, 13. The supper is designed to strengthen the weak faith of the little ones also. That none may nevertheless flatter himself, and draw near in a careless manner, thinking, I may be a believer, although I be not assured, and thus indulge himself in his security, when if he would consider his ways, he might easily know that he hath no interest in the righteousness of Christ, and that a true believer may not remain in uncertainty whether he have, or have not a lawful right to this seal of the covenant, the instructor exhibits in the eighty-first question, certain marks for trial, both for those who are qualified to approach the table of the Lord, and for those who must abstain from it.

The supper of the Lord was instituted then,

1. "For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins." Coming to themselves, they see their great guilt, and loathsome sinfulness, which affects them with grief, concern, shame, detestation of themselves, and anxiety: thus "they repent of their wickedness, saying, What have I done," Jer. viii. 6. See this in Ephraim, Jer. xxxi. 18, 19. This is that "sincere sorrow," of which we must speak with the instructor, on the eighty ninth question. The supper was instituted for such, since it teacheth them their abominableness, by which they deserve death, as they see in it that "they have pierced" the Son of God, according to Zech. xii. 10. It is given them from the covenant of grace, of which the supper is a seal, to "remember their evil ways, and their doings that were not good, and thus to loathe themselves in their own sight for their iniquities and for their