ucatrci or ?as [Boe II. alms, our praises, and ourselves, by virtue of Christ's sacrifice repre- sented before us by way of remembrance; nor can it be proved that the ancient Christians did any thing more than this. This whole ser- vice was their Christian sacrifice, and it is ours. Were the Church of Rome content with suoh sacrifice as this, we would have no com- plaint against them. But they have invented a new sacri?ce which Christ never instituted; which the apostles never thought of but to condemn; which the primitive church would have abhorred; and which we, if we would follow them, must entirely reject. That the sacrifice of the mass is without any foundation in Scripture; nay, that it is contrary* to Scripture, is highly derogatory to the sacrifice of Christ, and in itself barbarous and inhuman; we can undoubtedly prove by Scripture and invincible arguments. 3. And first of all, let it be considered, that there is no foundatiom either in our Lord's institution of the euch?ist, or in any other passage of Scripture. Nothing that our Lord says has any reference at all to the sacrifice of the mass. "He took bread and blessed it, he gave it to his disciples, saying, Do this in remembrance of me," &c. In the institution there is not the least hint that he should offer up hlmsell ?, or oommand his church to offer him up to God the Father in the sacra- ment of the eucharist. Did our Saylout, at his last supper, offer up himself, body, soul, and divinity, a true sacr?co to C?d, or did he not ? If he did not, how shall we dare to pretend to offer him up in our sacrament ! If he did, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to what purpose did he a?erward offer himself upon the cross ? And as to the other writers of the New Testament, though they sometimes mention this sacrament, we cannot conclude, from any thing they have said, that the doctrine of the mass is true. Nay, Paul'? whole discourse to the Corinthians about eating th?_n_gs offered to idols is an effectual confutation of the Romish sacrifice. For it pinotol)* shows that Paul's notion is, that the Christian communion was not a sacrifice, as the idolatrous feasts were, but a feast upon a sacrifice. However, they' introduce Melchisedec's bringing forth bread and wine when he met Abraham after the discomfiture of the five kings, as a proof for the mass oblation. Melchlsedec, say they, was the priest of the Most High God, and all Christian priests are after his order; and as his priesthood consisted in offering up bread and wine, so mtmt theirs also. This is the sum of the argument, but very little to the purpose, as the following arguments will fully show :--1. They can never show that Melchisedec's bringing forth wine was any act of his priesdy function. It was an act of hospitality to those persons, but not an act of sacrifice to C_?:I. 2. Supposing he officiated as priest, and offered up sacrifice to God, this is of no use, unless it can be proved that Christian ministers succeed him in his priesthood, which c? never be done. We read that Christ was a priest after the order of Melchisedec, but not a word that Christians are such. Nay, the supposition that Melchisedec was a type of Christ will destroy all pretences to the priesthood in gospel ?ministers. 3. Adm?ttisg the Christian clergy are the sucmessors of Melchi8edec, yet how does th?s ?ive authority to them to offer up Christ to the Father in the commu- nion ? He offered up only bread and wine; but they profess to offer up the body and blood, the soul and divinity of Christ, which was cer-
�
