284 n?csur?cs or ?ns ?,ztm. [Boor II. ],erf? end fully done abet(Iv, and that.for eoor ! Moreover, "where remission of sins is, there is ?o more offering for sin.** If, after retain- sion is granted to the sinner, his sins are remembered no more; and if Christ, by one 8acritice, "hath perfected for eveF the sanctified ;" then the sacrifice of the mass, about which the Romish clergy employ them* selves 8o incemandy, and to which the laity trtmt for the pardon of their sins, in proportion to the number of masses which, either by fayour, nmney, or legacies, they procure to be said for them after their death, hath no foundation in Scripture. When they say that their mass is only the representation and corn* memoration of the death of Christ, they virtually ?ve up their cease, and renounce an article of their faith established by the Council of Trent, which declares the mas? zo 6e a ?r? a? pr?)? ? f?y? .for est. I say they ?ve up the cause: for the representation and commemoration of a 8acrilice is not a sacrifice. Of the sacrifice of the mass we can see neither proof' nor possibility. For it not only supposes transubstantiation to be true, which we have proved to be false, but it is also inconsistent with two whole chapten of the Hebrews, the ninth and the tenth. 5. In the third place, as the sacrifice of the mass is not only with- out but against Scripture, 8o it is also highly injurious to t]? ?ompL? m,d perfect propitiation of (?Arist, for it takes away from its dignity and value. Because, ff the flint sacrifice of Christ once offered has all the sufficiency that can be procured by a sacrifice, nothing is left which can be done by the second. And it is entirely superfluous that the priest should offer every day a sacrifice propitiatory for the living and the dead, when all the propitiation was made by the first. But if this second be needful, it must be needful only on this account, that it po?es something that was wanting in the first. Either, therefore, there must be no second oblation of Christ, or that second will be a reproach to the infinite value of the first; for it is grounded on this supposition, that Christ's oblation on the cross was defective. They attempt to get over this difficulty by saying "that Christ's sa- crifice on the cross was sufficient to obtain pardon for the sins of the whole world; but the sacrifice is to be repeated, in order to apply the benefits of the first sacrifice." But this is very little to the purpose. For the notion of a propitiatory sacrifice is, to procure pardon for sin. If, therefore, Christ's first sacrifice did that, what need is there of an- other ? According to their doctrine, they should not have called the sacrifice of the mass apr '?, but an q0p//cator? one. Ami to azsi .gn to. it the power of applying to believersthe benefits of Christ's passton m a very erroneous principle. The way the Scripture po?es to have the benefits of Ghrist's passion applied to us, is the per- formsnee of several conditions on our part. 6. The sacrifice of the mass is not only derogatory to the one, per- fect, and.tiaa/sacrifice of Christ, but it is also barbaro? and For in this sacrifice the priest pretends to offer up every day our viour to God, as really as he offered himself upon the cross. But the absurdities that might be mentioned here have been sufficiendy pointed out in the chapter where transubstantiation was treated upon. 7. The celebration of mass in Latin, or in an unknown tongue, is contrary to Scripture. St. Paul said: "In the church I had rather
�
