Chapter V

SYNODICAL DISCLAIMER, _or List of Symbolic Errors rejected by the great body of the churches belonging to the General Synod_.

Having now arrived at the second part of the Definite Synodical Platform, namely, that part which is not to be subscribed to by the members of Synod; but which is published as the view of the majority, from which individuals are allowed to dissent; we shall pursue the following order in regard to each topic:

1. We shall recapitulate, briefly, what the Platform does assert.

2. State the objections made to these positions by the plea of Rev. Mr. Mann.

3. Examine these objections and vindicate what seems to be the truth. And as the Rev. Mr. Mann confines himself to the alleged errors of the Augsburg Confession, we shall, with little exception, do the same.

CEREMONIES OF THE MASS.

1. As to _what the Platform teaches_ on this topic, there ought to be no difficulty; because,

_a_. On page 5 of the Platform, we find a definite list of the errors contained in the Augsburg Confession, viz.:

1. The approval of the _ceremonies_ of the mass.

2. Private Confession and Absolution.

3. Denial of the Divine obligation of the Christian Sabbath.

4. Baptismal Regeneration.

5. The real presence of the body and blood of the Saviour in the Eucharist.

Here it is evident that the charge is, that the Confession advocates the _ceremonies_ of the mass, but _not the mass itself_, as has been alleged.

_b_. In the same connexion it is stated, "These are the _only_ errors contained in the Augsburg Confession." But if these are the only errors charged, then it follows that the error of inculcating the mass itself, or doctrine of the mass, is at all events _not charged in the Platform_, if it is in words even contained in the Confession.

_c_. The _caption_ in the list of errors on page 21 of the Platform, is not headed the _Mass_, as is the article of the Confession to which it refers; but what the Confession calls mass, the Platform, _with great moderation_, styles _Ceremonies_ of the mass.

_d_. In the list of errors, the profession of which should exclude from membership in Synods accepting the Platform, we find p. 15, the following: "Whilst we will not admit into our Synod any one who believes in Exorcism, Private Confession and Absolution, or the _Ceremonies_ of the Mass." Here again _Ceremonies_ of the mass are stated, but if the Platform taught that the Mass itself is inculcated in the Confession, believers in the Mass would, _a fortiori_, have also been mentioned as excluded.

What then is the meaning of the sentence on page 22 of the Platform, "In refutation of the _tolerant views of the mass_ above expressed, &c?" Why, of course we should suppose it meant those views of the mass which the Platform charges against the Confession, as taught in these passages, namely, retaining and approving the _ceremonial_ of the mass, which constituted by far the greater part of the public mass, so called, although its nature had been changed by denying the _sacrificial_ character of the minister's act of self-communion, and its being performed for the benefit of _others_, either living or dead. We think also, some objectionable parts of the ceremonial itself were changed, although the Confession asserts that the addition of some German hymns, along with the Latin, was the only alteration made. Among those objectionable parts retained, was _the elevation of the host_, of which Luther thus speaks, in his _Short Confession about the Sacrament_ against the Fanatics,in 1544. [Note 1] "It, happened about twenty or twenty-two years ago, when I began to condemn the mass (messe,) and wrote severely against the papists, to show that it (the mass) was not a sacrifice, nor a work of ours, but a gift and blessing or testament of God, which we could not offer to God, but ought and must receive from him. At that time I was disposed to reject _the elevation of the host_, on account of the papists, who regard it, as a sacrifice, &c. But as our doctrine was at that time new and exceedingly offensive over the whole world, I had to proceed cautiously, and on account of the weak, to yield many things, which I, at a later period, would not do. I therefore suffered the elevation of the host, to remain, especially as it admits of a favorable, explanation, as I showed in my little work '_De Captivitate Babylonica, &c._'" The elevation of the host was still practised in Saxony generally in 1542, [Note 2] twelve years after the Confession was written, approving of the ceremonies of the mass, of which this was one. This remnant of popery was, however, universally rejected soon after this period, certainly before 1545, and in Wittenberg, in 1542.

_Again_, what is the natural import of the phrase on page 21 of the Platform: "Accordingly the Lutheran church, in Europe and America, has unanimously repudiated alike the mass and its ceremonies." The passage itself specifies no time, when either was rejected, and neither says nor implies that both were rejected at the same time. The word "accordingly" refers to what preceded. The whole reads thus: "Topic I., _Ceremonies_ of the mass. The error taught on this subject by the Augsburg Confession and Apology to it (namely, the error on these ceremonies of the mass) was rejected by the reformers themselves a few years after the Confession was first published. Accordingly, the Lutheran Church, both in Europe and America, has unanimously repudiated alike the mass and its ceremonies." As the Augsburg Confession expressly teaches that private and closet masses had been _previously_ rejected, and the Platform says the _only_ error in the Augsburg Confession on this subject is the _ceremonies_ of the public mass, its sacrificial and vicarious nature having also been repudiated long before, it follows, that the thing here spoken of as the mass and its ceremonies is that remnant of this rite, which, as proved above, had not yet been rejected before 1530, the essential doctrine even of the public mass having been rejected long before. Hence, the import of this passage is: that whilst the reformers had long before the Diet of Augsburg rejected the doctrine of the mass, as a sacrifice or a vicarious service for the benefit of others, and had wholly rejected _private and closet masses;_ they retained the ceremonies or ritual of the public mass, preceding communion: but even this latter also they renounced soon after; and accordingly, the Lutheran church, every where in Europe and America, imitating their example, has repudiated alike the mass and its ceremonies, which with the above-mentioned various qualifications, are taught in the passages cited from the Confession. Had we been writing for those unacquainted with the Augsburg Confession, the qualifications here referred to, might have been specified.

2. Our _next inquiry is, What objection does the Plea make to the representations of the Platform on this subject?

The whole charge of our respected friend against the Platform is, that it misapprehends the _import of the word mass_ in the 24th Article, and therefore misrepresents the Confession, in charging it with sanctioning the ceremonies of the Romish mass. To support this charge he affirms, that the word mass (or missa, mess,) was at the time of the Confession, in 1530, _in general use for the eucharist;_ and that in later years the term mass, in this sense, was entirely given up by the Reformers, page 15 of Plea.

The charge is certainly a grave one, and if unfounded, a grievous injustice is done to the venerable mother symbol of Protestantism. Viewing it in this light, we were slow to admit its truth ourselves, until a pretty extensive acquaintance with the writings of the Reformers compelled us to yield our conviction. Still we would have greatly preferred to remain silent on the subject and throw the mantle of oblivion over this deformity of our symbolic mother; had not ill-advised ultra-symbolists of late years carried on a crusade against all Lutherans who will not adopt the entire symbolic system. The charge in the Platform was advisedly made, after careful examination. Since the charge has been denied, we have again extensively examined the writings of the Reformers, and whilst it would afford us pleasure to withdraw it, and acknowledge our error; our conviction has grown more firm, and we shall be greatly surprised if the great majority of impartial minds do not find the evidence of our position fully satisfactory. At the same time, whilst we charge the Confession with favoring merely the _ceremonies_ of the mass, other writers of the first respectability, have expressed the charge in stronger language. Thus _Fuhrmann_, in his Lexicon of Religious and Ecclesiastical History, speaking of the Romish mass, says: "_That Luther for some time tolerated it, and gave if a a German garb and afterwards abolished it, is notorious_. [Note 3] And that impartial and highly respectable historian of our own country, Dr. Murdock, whose extended and valuable additions to the classic church history of Dr. Moshiem, abundantly prove his acquaintance with the subject; in giving a synopsis of the contents of the Augsburg Confession, thus epitomises the 24th Article: "_The Protestants are falsely taxed with abolishing the mass_. They only purified it; and discarded the idea of its being a work of merit, or offering for the sins of the living and the dead, which militates against the scriptural doctrine, that Christ's sacrifice is the only sin offering." [note 4]

In order that we may give this question an impartial and conscientious investigation, let us first inquire into the meaning of the word mass among the Papists, apart from the present dispute. "_Mass_ (missa, Mess,) says _Fuhrmann_, in his Lexicon of Religious and Ecclesiastical History, [Note 5] at first signified that worship of God, which _preceded_ the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Subsequently, and especially in the fifth century, ministers termed the public celebration of the eucharist, _mass_ (or missa, dismissed); because this service took place after the catechumens were dismissed. This word 'missa' was gradually corrupted into _mass_. But how did that mode of celebrating this ordinance arise in the Romish Church, _which consisted in the priest's giving the sacrament to himself alone, connected with solemn turnings around, and moving about from place to place, and changes of attitude, resembling in some degree a theatrical exhibition, which is termed mass?_" He then proceeds to explain the history of the Romish mass here defined.

_Siegel_, in his excellent Manual of Christian Ecclesiastical Antiquities, published at Leipsic, in 1837, in four volumes, presents an extended view of this subject, from which we will extract little more than his definition of the mass. "The mass, in the Roman Catholic sense of the term, belongs not to the centuries of Christian antiquity, but to a later period." [Note 6] We take up the subject at the time when the Catholic doctrine of _transubstantiation_ was fully developed, (since the Lateran Council of 1215.) In conformity to this view of the sacrament, (the doctrine of transubstantiation,) _the idea of the mass was so developed, as to signify that solemn act of the priest, decorated with many ceremonies, by which he offers the unbloody sacrifice at the altar." [Note 7] The mass service is a commixture of Scripture passages, long and short prayers, extracts from the gospels and epistles (pericopen,) liturgic forms, which are divided into several chief parts, designated by different names, Introitus, Offertorium, Canon missae," &c. [Note 8] This whole service amounts to some fifteen or twenty octavo pages, including the directions for genuflections, crossings, tergiversations, &c., occupying about an hour in the reading, the performance of which by the priest was termed "reading mass," as the listening of the audience was called "hearing mass."

In view of these authorities, we may take for granted, what we suppose no one will deny, that in the Romish Church, not only of the present day, but since several centuries before the Reformation, and, therefore, in 1530, the most common and primary meaning of the word _mass_, was not Lord's Supper; but that long ceremonial, including the consecration of the elements, elevation of the host, and self-communion of the priest, as an offering of the body of Christ a sacrifice for the sins of the living and dead, _which preceded_ the distribution of the sacrament to the people.

_Again_, it will be admitted, that whilst among Papists the above specific meaning of the word mass was the most common one, that term was also not unfrequently used by synecdoche, as a part of the whole, to designate the sacramental celebration in general: just as we use the word "_preaching_" which specifically signifies the delivery of a sermon, for the whole services of public worship in the phrase, "will you go to preaching to-day?"

_Finally_, it will be admitted, that the Reformers, having been educated as Papists, were trained up to this twofold use of the word mass, namely, specifically the extended services above described, which _preceded_ the communion, and sometimes informally the eucharist, communion or sacrament in general.

The question then seems definitely to be reduced to these two inquiries; first, _Did the Reformers retain this distinction in the use of the word mass at the time of the Diet at Augsburg; and, secondly, did they employ the word in its specific sense in the disputed passages of that Confession?

_First Inquiry_.

We shall _first_ inquire whether this distinction in the use of the word mass was observed by the Reformers at and before the time of the Augsburg Diet?

I. And _first_ let us listen to _Luther_ himself. In 1523, the great Reformer, 1, in his "_Method of conducting Christian Mass_," addressed to Rev. Nicolas Hausman, after having rejected such portions of the Romish mass, as he thought wrong, he approved others, as explained by himself, such as the, Introitus, the Kyrie eleison, the Collecta or prayer epistles, the Singing of the Gradual, a short sequens, the Gospel, the Nicene Creed, and a number of other matters, including the elevation of the host, but not for worship, [Note 9] he proceeds to the next part of the Treatise which is headed "How to _administer the most holy sacrament to the people," [Note 10] and his first sentence is the following: "Let this much suffice to be said of the _Mass_, and service of the minister; we will now proceed to treat of the manner in which the holy _sacrament_ shall be administered to the people, for whose benefit especially the Supper of our Lord was instituted." Here we clearly see the distinction between the performances of the priest _before_ the communion which constitute the _Mass_, and the distribution of the elements to the people, which he terms holy _sacrament_. Then, after having discussed the subject of the communion, that it should be received in both kinds, &c., he adds, "Let this suffice for the present on the subject of the mass _and_ communion." [Note 11]

2. In his _letter to Lazarus Spengler_, in 1528, Luther observes this same distinction. "In the first place," he remarks, "it is unreasonable that any one should be forced to receive the sacrament or to abstain from it." And he adds: "All masses, at which there are _no communicants_" (that is, at which the sacrament is not administered,) "should absolutely be omitted." [Note 12] Here the administration of the supper to the laity is termed _sacrament_, and that service performed by the minister, which was sometimes succeeded by the sacrament or communion, and at others not, is called _mass_.

3. _The Counsel of Luther and Pomeranius_, in 1528, to Duke George: "First, as you inquire concerning _parish_ masses, &c. Be it known to you that no minister can with good conscience perform mass alone, when there are no communicants. Therefore here there is no room for further inquiry; either there must be communicants, or them should be no mass." [Note 13]

4. Luther's "_Confession of the Christian Doctrines, in XVII. Articles_," published in 1530. This is a very short Confession, each article containing but three or four sentences, and the whole amounting to only three or four 8vo. pages. In Article X. he says: "The _eucharist_ or _sacrament_ of the altar also consists of two parts, namely that the true body and blood of Christ should verily be present in the bread and wine;" and in Article XVI. he says: "Above all other abominations, the _masses_, that have hitherto been regarded as a _sacrifice_ or _good work_, by which one designed to procure grace for the other, are to be rejected." [Note 14] Here the distinction is not only made between the mass and eucharist, but the doctrine of the mass as a sacrifice of Christ offered by the priest for others, is also denounced. It will also be recollected that this view of the mass as a sacrifice, and as vicarious, is strongly denounced in the Augsburg Confession, whilst the charge of having rejected the rite itself with these and other modifications, is flatly denied, in these words: "It is _unjustly_ charged against our churches, that they have abolished the mass," (Art. XXIV., p. 21 of the Platform,) a thing never charged against them in reference to the eucharist, for from the very beginning of the Reformation, they charged the Papists with having mutilated it, and claimed the restoration of the cup also to the laity.

5. In a _letter_ of September 20, 1530, addressed _to Justus Jonas_, one of the theologians at the diet, Luther thus expresses himself: "For, what else do our opponents, (the Papists,) presume to propose, than that they shall not yield a hairsbreadth, but that we not only yield on the subject of the canon, _the mass_, the _one kind_, (in the eucharist,) celibacy, (of the clergy,) and jurisdiction (of the bishops); but shall also admit that they have taught the truth, and acted properly in all things, and were falsely accused by us." [Note 15] Here the mass is again distinguished from the eucharist in one kind. He then adds: "If we will get at it (yielding to the Papists,) let us yield only the canon, and the closet masses; and either of these two is sufficient fully to deny our doctrine and to confirm theirs." The _canon_ was that part of the ritual of the mass which contained the forms of transubstantiation, which were positively rejected by the reformers, the closet masses are rejected in the Augsburg Confession; but Luther says nothing against the public mass, qualified as it is in the Confession.

6. In his _Exhortation to the Sacrament_ of the body and blood of Christ, published in 1530, he says: "If the Papists do, as usual, quibble at my language, and boast that I myself here make a sacrifice in the _sacrament_, although I have hitherto contended that the _mass_ is no sacrifice; then you shall answer thus: I make _neither the mass nor the sacrament_ a sacrifice, ("Ich mache _weder_ Messe _noch_ Sacrament zum opfer,") but the remembrance of Christ," [Note 16] &c. Here the two are distinguished as clearly as language can discriminate between two separate objects, and even placed in antithesis to one another: and let it be remembered, that all the examples are taken from works published either before or in the very year in which the Augsburg Confession was written. A few years later, in 1534, in a letter to a friend, in which he inveighs strongly against the closet masses and the perverted order or arrangements of the mass, (verkehrte ordnung der Messe,) and against the Romish mass in general: "I wish, and would very gladly see and hear, that the two words mass and sacrament were considered by every one as being as far apart as light and darkness, yea, as the devil and God. For they (the Papists) must themselves confess, that mass dues not signify the reception of the sacrament as Christ instituted it; but the reception of the sacrament they do, (and no thanks to them,) they _must_ call _communion. But that is called_ MASS _which the priest alone performs at the altar, in which no common christian or layman takes part_." All other christians do nothing more than receive the sacrament, _and do not perform mass_. [Note 17] Certainly it must be evident that Luther did not regard the word mass as the ordinary term for eucharist, but had a clear idea of the distinction, and of the importance of observing it.

II. Let us now adduce similar evidence from the writings of _Melancthon himself_, who wrote the Confession, to show that he also observed the distinction between _mass_ and _eucharist_. This evidence will be the stronger as all his letters quoted, were written from Augsburg itself, during the very time that he composed the Confession, and whilst it was under consideration in the Diet. [Note 18]

1. In a letter to Luther, dated Augsburg, July 30, 1530, Melancthon says: "Zwingle has sent hither a printed Confession. His views of the _Eucharist_ (Abendmahl) he urge strongly. He wishes all bishops to be extirpated." Then after speaking of human traditions, he adds: "In the matter of the _mass_, (not eucharist, which he had just mentioned before,) and in the first discussion (Aufsatz, composition) of the doctrinal articles I think I was cautions enough, but on the topics concerning unwritten traditions, I was never rightly satisfied with myself." [Note 19]

2. In another letter to Luther, of August 6th, he says: "At last, on Aug. 3d, we heard the (Romish) Refutation (of the Augsburg Confession), and also the declaration of the emperor. His declaration was terrible enough, but the Refutation was composed in such a puerile manner, that we could not but heartily congratulate each other. There is not a single composition of Faber, (the pensman of the Refutation,) however silly it may be, that is not exceeded in silliness by this. On the doctrine concern the two kinds, (in the Eucharist,) he adduced the history of the sons of Eli, who desired bread to eat; and wished to prove by it, that it becomes laymen to be satisfied with the mere bread in the _Eucharist_. His defence of the _Mass_ was very frosty." [Note 20] Here we find the eucharist and the mass spoken of as separate things, and the discussion of the one represented as silly, and that of the other frosty.

3. In a letter to Luther, dated August 22d, he thus writes: "Yesterday we closed the discussion, or rather the quarrel (Gezaenk) which has been conducted before the umpires. The third point was the question of merit, &c. Then he came to the _two kinds_ (in the eucharist). Here he exerted himself to the utmost to prove that _both_ kinds are not commanded. He maintained that it was a matter of indifference whether one or both kinds are received, and and [sic] that if we would teach this, he would cheerfully allow us both kinds. This I could not accede to; nevertheless, I excused those who had hitherto erroneously received but one kind; for they cried out, the whole church is condemned by us. What think you of this? The command of Jesus refers to ministers and laymen. Hence if it is our duty to receive the _sacrament_, we are also obligated to retain the form of the entire sacrament. If you also are of this opinion, then inform me of it distinctly. On the subject of the _mass_, vows and marriage, there was no discussions, only some conditions were proposed, which we, however, did not accept." [Note 21] Here again, the distinction between the sacrament and the mass is clearly made, and we are told that at the disputation before the umpires, the former was debated and the latter not. Can anything be plainer, than that a distinction is here made between eucharist and mass?

4. Under date of August 28, Melancthon thus writes to _Luther:_ "They (the Papists,) wish us to admit, that neither those who administer but one kind, nor those who receive it, are guilty of sin. We have, indeed, exonerated those from blame, who receive but one kind; but as to those who administer but one,--there is the knot. The Synod of Basil conceded the _whole sacrament_ to the Bohemians, on condition that they would acknowledge that it may, with propriety, be taken and received in one kind only. This confession they also wish to extort from us. _Eckius_ says he contends for this point, merely because the people cannot be retained in the discharge of duty, unless _we_ also release their consciences in regard to the _sacrament_ (that is, unless the reformers would admit, that its reception in one kind was also allowable). We therefore desire to know your judgment on the case. As to the application of _masses_, they are willing to postpone this till the meeting of the synod (or council); and thus they intimate, that they will not oppress us with the reception of their ungodly views on the _mass_ (Koethe's edition: mit der gottlosen Application der Messe, with the ungodly application of the mass, _i.e._ to the living and dead). And yet they desire us to receive the _canon_ of the mass, (_i.e._ the most objectionable part of the ritual of the mass, relating to the transubstantiation of the bread and wine, its application to others, &c.,) but with a convenient and devout explanation." [Note 22] Here again, the distinction between the mass and the sacrament is clearly seen.

5. On Sept. 4th, he again writes to _Luther:_ "I know that this long silence must be very annoying to you, especially at this time, when we ought to consult one another most frequently; but believe me, nothing is so much opposed to my wishes in the court, as this indifference in dispatching more frequent messengers to you, and yet I am unable to induce them to do it. We have not yet received from our opponents the proposed conditions in reference to the _two kinds_ (in the eucharist), marriage and _the_ mass." [Note 23] Here again, who does not see the distinction?

6. In a document, which Melancthon prepared for a friend of the chancellor of the bishop of Luettich, in which he states how far they yielded, and also the points in which they could not agree, we find the following: "_Of the two kinds_.--Here we excused those (the laity,) who receive one kind alone (that is, merely the bread in the eucharist), for as they do not distribute the sacraments, they have to receive the sacrament as it is given to them." [Note 24] "_Of the mass_.--In regard to the mass we have already given our reply: namely, that our party retain the substantials (substantalia,) and principal parts of the mass, so far as the consecration is concerned, &c." [Note 25] "_The mass is not_ a work which, when applied to others, merits grace for them _ex opere operato;_ but according to the confession of the whole church, the _Lord's Supper is_ the sacrament, through which grace is offered to him that receives it, which grace he also really receives, but not by the more external act, but through faith, when he is certain that, in it., grace and pardon of sins are offered." [Note 26]

III. We will add a few short _extracts from other reformers_, written at the time of the Diet, to confirm our position that they also made a distinction between the mass and the eucharist, and that by the former they meant that performance of the priest alone at the altar, which preceded the communion.

1. _Aurifaber_, who was a particular personal friend of Luther, and was present at his death. In his account of the incidents of Luther and his doctrines in the year 1530, speaking of the special committee which was appointed on the 16th of August, consisting of seven members on each side, he remarks: [Note 27] "These assembled and took into consideration the Augsburg Confession of the Protestant States, deliberating on one article after another, and the first day agreed upon eleven articles. The second day they continued their negotiations and agreed toll [sic] to twenty-one articles. But on the articles concerning _the mass_, marriage of priests, _the Lord's Supper_, monastic vows and the jurisdiction of the bishops, &c., they could not agree and remained at variance." Here the mass and the Lord's Supper are distinctly classed as different topics.

2. _Spalatin_, one of the theologians who attended the Elector to Augsburg, in his narrative of what occurred during the diet, giving a brief abstract of the contents of the Augsburg Confession, epitomises the, Xth Article thus: Of the Holy _Sacrament of the true body and blood of Christ_ in the Sacrament of the altar; and the XXIV Article, "of the _Mass_, how it is celebrated amongst us, and the reason why closet masses have been rejected by us." Here again, who does not see that the two are represented as distinct?

IV. We shall close this cumulative mass of evidence for the distinction between the terms mass and eucharist or Lord's supper, at the time of the diet of Augsburg, by an extract from the professed _refutation of the Augsburg Confession_, prepared by the _papists_ during the diet; from which it will be evident, not only that they make this distinction themselves, which no one denies, but that _they understood the Augsburg Condition as making it also_.

In their reply to Article XXIV. of the Confession, (or the III. of the Abuses Corrected) they state: "For the _mass_ is celebrated, in order that the _holy eucharist_ may be offered in memory of the passion of Christ." [Note 28] "In those churches, (which apostatize in the latter times) _no more masses_ will be celebrated, _no more sacrament_ distributed, no more altars, nor images of the saints, &c." [Note 29] Finally, near the close of their pretended refutation of this Article of the Augsburg Confession, (XXIV.) the papist Refutation says, "It is therefore not rejected or regarded as wrong that the (Protestant) Princes and cities (according to their Confession, Article XXIV.,) celebrate one common (public) mass in their churches; if they only performed it properly, according to the holy rule and canonical regulations, as all Catholics perform it. But that they (the Protestants, in their Confession) reject all _other_ masses, can neither be tolerated nor suffered by the christian faith and Catholic profession, (that is, cannot be allowed by us, who profess the Roman Catholic faith.) [Note 30]

Here then, in view of all this mass of evidence, we appeal to every candid and conscientious reader, whether it is not impossible, fairly, to resist the conviction, that the Reformers did, at and before the diet at Augsburg in 1530, ordinarily observe the distinction to which they had been trained in the Romish church, between the words _mass_ and _eucharist_, or _Lord's supper_, so that in all cases where precision was necessary, and especially where both were spoken of, each was called by its appropriate name? We say "ordinarily," because we freely admit that sometimes they did use the word mass in a more general sense, as a part for the whole, to include both the eucharist and the mass proper, just as we now use the term preaching for the whole of the public service, in the inquiry, "Will you go to preaching to day?" whilst in its proper meaning, preaching has reference only to the sermon. Our chain of argument is therefore not complete until we add another link, and prove that the Reformers employed the word mass in its specific and proper signification, in the disputed passages of the Augsburg Confession, as they did in the numerous passages above cited, and as the Papists themselves understood them to do.

_Second Inquiry_.

Let us now, in _the second_ place, inquire, _Whether the Reformers employed the word mass in its proper and specific meaning in the disputed passages of the Augsburg Confession_.

The affirmative of this question is, we think, certain, from a variety of evidences.

1. Because we find _two different articles of the Confession, the one with mass (Messe) for its caption, and the other headed:_ OF THE HOLY SUPPER (vom Heiligen Abendmahl.) Now, if mass here signified Holy Supper, the probability is that one or the other term would have been used in both places. The design of captions prefixed to a chapter or article, is to indicate the general contents of such article; and a diversity of caption or title, naturally raises the presumption that different subjects are discussed. The most natural method of deciding this question concerning the meaning of the caption, is to inquire what, are the subjects discussed in each article. If the subjects discussed in both articles are the same, then the captions are or ought to be synonymous, and as the Lord's Supper never signifies mass in its specific sense, it follows that mass would have to mean Lord's Supper. But if different subjects are treated of in the two articles, then the captions, if appropriate, must mean different things. Now, it will not be denied, that whilst the Article X., headed Lord's Supper, discusses matter specifically relating to the eucharist, (namely the real presence of the body and blood of the Saviour in the Holy Supper;) the Article XXIV., headed the _Mass_, actually discusses what is specifically termed the mass, namely, the ceremony and acts of the priest or minister _preceding_ the Lord's Supper. Thus, the article states, "No perceptible change was made in the public ceremonies of the mass, except the addition of German hymns along with the Latin; but it is well known that there are no other "public ceremonies" connected with the Lord's Supper in the Romish church, except those embraced in _the_ mass, specifically so called, and that the _Latin_ hymns were part of this mass, "Masses are bought and sold at annual fairs, and the greater part of them (the masses) in all the churches, were sold for money;" but we have never heard that Romanists had to pay for receiving the communion, it is only for a certain performance of the priest, called mass, that they pay the priest. These "money masses and closet masses," are condemned; whilst no objection is made to public mass, at which the sacrament is administered; on the contrary, it is stated, that by proper instruction, "the people are attracted to communion _and_ the mass." The question is referred to "whether a mass performed for a number of persons collectively, was as efficacious as a separate mass for each individual;" but who ever heard of christians receiving one Lord's Supper collectively, for a number of other persons, or for an individual? And if the thing is done by the priest, then it is what is specifically called mass. So also, who ever heard of the Lord's Supper being received "for the dead;" but it is very common for the priest to say _mass_ for the dead. Thus, might we add additional sentences from this Article XXIV., which applied to the Lord's Supper, make no sense, but are appropriately and historically true of the mass in its specific sense. Since then almost the whole article treats of the mass proper, does not common sense, as well as the legitimate principles of interpretation, require us so to interpret the word mass in the caption and passages cited from this article? The same reason would apply to a comparison of the caption of Article XXII., or I, of the Abuses Corrected, namely, "Of Communion in both kinds," compared with the word mass; but we deem it unnecessary.

2. That the word mass is here used in its appropriate sense, is evident, _because Melancthon himself, in translating the Latin original into German_, always renders the Latin term for mass (missa) by the German term messe (mass); whereas if he had used the Latin term in its more general sense in Article XXIV., he would at least sometimes have translated it eucharist, or Lord's Supper. But so far as we have examined, the word mass (messe) is always employed in this article, where the German is a translation of the Latin. In one case at least we have found the German and Latin Confessions pursue different trains of thought; so that though mass is found in the one, nothing corresponding is contained in the other. The same may be affirmed of all translations into English that we have seen, whether made in this country or in Great Britain. No translator, so far as our knowledge extends, has ventured to render "missa" or " messe," by Lord's Supper or eucharist; but by the appropriate term "_mass;_" because they all felt that the context and scope of the Article demanded it.

3. Another proof in Article XXIV. itself, that the word mass is used to designate that ceremonial, which preceded the distribution of the sacrament, is found in _the fact that both the word mass and sacrament are used together, with the copulative conjunction_ AND _connecting them. a_. Thus, near the commencement of the article, we read: "Our people are instructed repeatedly, and with the utmost diligence, concerning the design and proper mode of receiving the holy sacrament; namely, to comfort alarmed consciences; by which means the people are attracted to the _communion_ AND _the mass_," [Note 31] (dadurch das volk zur communion _und_ Mess gezogen wird.) The Latin copy here has a different train of remarks.

_b_. Again, the following passage near the close of the Article: "The ancient canons also show that one of the priests performed the mass, _and_ administered the communion to the other priests and deacons." [Note 32] (Auch zeigen die alten canones an, dasz einer das Amt gehalten hat UND die andern Priester und Diakon communicirt.) _c_. Also the passage preceding this: "Our custom is, that on holy days, and also at other times, if communicants are present, _we hold mass_ AND _admit to communion_ such as desire it." (So wird diese Weise bei uns gehalten, dasz man an Feiertagen, auch sonst so communicanten da sind, mess haelt, und etliche so das begehren, communiciert. _Servatur_ apud nos _una communis missa_ singulis feriis, atque aliis etiam diebus, si qui sacramento velint uti, _ubi porrigitur sacramentum his qui petunt_.) Here, then, we find three passages in this very Article itself, in which the mass is distinguished from the distribution of the supper, and the two things are connected by "and," necessarily implying their diversity.

4. That the words [sic] mass is used in its appropriate specific sense in this Article, and not as synonymous with Lord's Supper, or eucharist, as the Plea for the Augsburg Confession [Note 33] asserts, is proved by the fact, that _if you substitute either of these words for it, many passages in the Article will not make sense_. We will present a few specimens, which may be multiplied by any one who will take Article XXIV. of the Confession and read it, substituting either Lord's Supper or eucharist in place of the word mass.

"By which means the people are attracted to the communion and the _eucharist_, (the mass;") which is equivalent to saying, they were attracted to the eucharist and the eucharist.

"An annual fair was made, at which _eucharists_ (masses) were bought and sold." This would be historically untrue.

"And the greater part of them (the _eucharists_) in all the churches, were performed for money." To this the same remark applies.

"These money-_eucharists_ and closet _eucharists_ (masses,) have ceased in our churches:" but the eucharist certainly had not ceased.

"Hence also arose the controversy, whether a _eucharist_ (mass) performed for (not by) a number of persons collectively, was as efficacious as a separate _eucharist_ for each individual." This question applies only to the mass proper, and was never mooted about the eucharist.

"The ancient canons also show, that one of the priests performed or celebrated (halten, celebrare) _eucharist, and administered the communion to the other priests and deacons." [Note 34] This specimen, like the first, would be purely tautological.

5. That the word mass is used in Article XXIV., distinctively for the mass, is evident from the fact that the _Romanists so understood_ it, and in their answer to the Confession attempt to refute the Protestant rejection not of the Lord's Supper, but of the private _masses_, the closet _masses_, and the sacrificial and vicarious nature of the _mass_ in general whilst they applaud the retention of public mass by the Reformers, if they would only celebrate it according to canonical regulations. We will cite a single passage, out of many that might be adduced:--

"It, is therefore not rejected, nor regarded as wrong, that the (Protestant) princes and cities (according to Article XXIV. of their Confession, on which they are commenting,) celebrate one common (or public) mass in their churches; if they only performed it properly, according to the holy rule and canonical regulations, as all Catholics perform it. But that they (the Protestants) reject all _other_ masses, can neither be tolerated nor suffered by the Christian faith and Catholic profession;" (that is, cannot be allowed by us who profess the Roman Catholic religion. [Note 35]) As this Romish Refutation is rarely met with, we add the exact original: "_Wird demnach nicht verworfen noch fuer unrecht erkannt, dasz die Fuersten und Staedt halten ein gemeine Mess in der Kirchen, wann sie solche nur ordentlich und richtig nach der heiligen Richtschnur und canonischen Regel hielten und thaeten, we es alle Catholischen halten: Dieweil sie aber alle andere Messen abschaffen, das kann der Christlich glaub und Catholische Profession und Bekaentnisz weder dulden noch leiden_."

6. The same fact is confirmed still further by _the Apology to the Augsburg Confession_, written by Melancthon, in reply to the Romish Refutation, from which we have just presented an extract. From this it is evident that the Papists had correctly understood the Augsburg Confession as speaking of the mass properly so called; and that we have therefore also not misunderstood or misrepresented it. Speaking of the very part of the Refutation from which the above passage is cited, Melancthon says: "In the first place, we must state, by way of introduction, that we _do not abolish the mass_. For on every Sunday and Festival, _masses_, (Messen) (not Lord's Suppers) are held in our churches, at which the _sacrament_ is administered to those who desire it." Here evidently mass and the sacrament are two things.

"Our opponents make a great talk (geschwaetz) about the _Latin_ mass, that is about the Mass which, as is well known, was and is _read_ in Latin; but certainly they did not talk about the Latin Lord's Supper.

"But where do we find the Pharisaic, doctrine written, that the _hearing_ of the mass without understanding it, is, ex opere operato, meritorious and saving?" The term _hearing_ evidently refers to the mass, which was read; but what sense would there be in the phrase _hearing_ the Lord's Supper?

"That we do not celebrate private masses, but only a _public mass_ (eine oeffentliche Messe,) when the people also commune, is not at all contrary to the common (or general) Christian church." Here the _private_ masses are distinguished from the _public_ mass, and the fact affirmed, as clearly as language can convey the idea, that the _Reformers did retain and practice_ PUBLIC _mass on sacramental occasions_." [Note 36] We might easily adduce a number of other passages from this book, but really it seems to be a work of supererogation.

To this decided declaration of Melancthon, we might add his assertions on other occasions. Let a single one suffice. In his letter to Margrave George, of Brandenburg, on the _private_ mass, he uses this language: "Finally, as your excellence wishes to know what we retain in our churches of the ceremonies of the mass, I would inform your excellence, that the mass is entirely abolished, _except when are persons present_ who wish to receive the Lord's Supper;" [Note 37] that is, we have entirely abolished private masses; at which, as it is well known, no one communed but the priest himself, but retain the _public mass_ at communion seasons.

_Finally_, to make assurance doubly sure, we will add a similar testimony from Luther himself, in a letter of Counsel to Lazarus Spengler, in 1528: "In the _first place_, let all masses be absolutely dispensed with at which there are no communicants present; as they properly ought to be set aside. Secondly, that in the two parish churches (namely, in Nuerenberg, where Spongier resided,) one or two masses should be held on Sabbath and holy days, according as there may be many or few communicants." [Note 38]

Now, in this passage, the word mass either means Lord's Supper in general or mass in particular. It does not mean the former, because it was something which Luther says had been performed _without any_ communicants being present, but should not be performed hereafter, unless there were communicants. Again, he says, that on Sabbath or holy days, when there are communicants present, this mass, which from its nature _could_ be and had been performed without communicants, should be performed once or twice. But what sense is there in terming that the administration of the Lord's Supper at which there are no communicants. Or in talking about administering one or two Lord's Suppers, as the number of communicants might be large or small? For ourselves, it is impossible to doubt, that the mass proper is here intended, which was often celebrated by the minister alone, and which, at communion seasons, was the usual preparation for the communion.

_And now, what is the result of our inquiry?_

We premised, as conceded by all, that as the word mass among the Romanists does now, so it did at the time of the the [sic] Reformation, and several centuries before, specifically signify a certain service of about an hour's length, consisting of a commixture of Scripture passages, long and short prayers, invocations, extracts from the gospels and epistles, liturgic forms, the forms of consecration of the elements and transubstantiation of them into the Saviour's body and blood, with numerous crossings, genuflexions, the elevation of the host and especially the self-communion of the priest, as an offering of the body of Christ a bloodless sacrifice for the sins of the living or dead; all of which was read and done by the _priest himself_ before the altar; and which preceded the sacramental communion of the congregation, and was the only preparation for the communion.

We also admitted, that then, as now, the word mass was sometimes used by the Romanists for the sacramental celebration in general, including the mass proper.

Thirdly, we assumed as undenied, that the Reformers, having been born and educated in the Romish religion till their majority, were accustomed to this two-fold use of the term mass.

We then asserted that the Reformers continued the twofold use of the term, and as its occasional use for the eucharist in general is not disputed, we especially proved that they continued to observe the distinction and to employ it in its _specific sense_, whenever the mass proper was spoken of.

We proved from various letters and other documents of _Luther_, written in the year of the Diet, that he makes the distinction and uses the term mass for the above described mass proper.

We proved from various letters and other articles of _Melancthon_, written during the session of the Diet, that he employed it in this specific sense.

We proved that the other Reformers used the word in this specific sense, such as Aurifaber, and Spalatin. And finally:

We proved that the _Romanists_ used it in this sense at the Diet, in their pretended Refutation of the Augsburg Confession.

There being no possible doubt of the Reformers using the word mass to mean the specific mass, in their other writings at that time; the, only remaining question was, whether Melancthon so used it in the disputed passages of the Article XXIV. of the Augsburg Confession.

That he did here employ it, in this specific sense, we proved by the following facts: Because he made two different captions or headings for two different articles, and in the one headed "Of the Lord's Supper," he discusses that subject, and in the other headed "The Mass," he discusses what is specifically termed mass.

We proved, that Melancthon and all other translators from the Latin or German copy, have translated these passages, messa, and _mass_, and not Abendmahl, or Lord's Supper, or Eucharist.

We have proved, that in this very Article XXIV., the mass and sacrament are spoken of in the same sentence as different things, being connected together by the word "_and_."

We have proved, that if we substitute the Lord's Supper instead of mass in this Article, many of the passages will make nonsense.

We have proved, that the Romanists themselves in their Refutation of the Augsburg Confession, understood this Article XXIV. as speaking of the Mass proper, and censured it for rejecting private masses, _whilst it approved of it_ for retaining public masses.

_Finally_, we have proved, that Melancthon, in replying to this Romish Refutation, does not charge them with having misunderstood the XXIV. Article; but goes on to refute their arguments, implying that they had understood him correctly.

In view of all these facts it is impossible for us to doubt, that the word mass in the objected passages of the Article XXIV., signifies the mass in its specific sense, and not the Lord's Supper in general: and that when the Reformers affirm in their Confession, that "they are unjustly charged with having abolished the mass" they meant that they retained the mass on sacramental occasions, with the limitations and altered explanations of the nature and application of it, specified in different parts of the Confession; whilst they freely admitted, that they had rejected private and closet, masses, and indeed all masses, except on occasions when the sacrament was administered to the people. What the Romanists considered as the essential doctrine of the mass, viz., its being a sacrifice of Christ, offered by the priest, and its being offered by him for others than himself, either living or dead, and its being performed at any other time, or for any other purpose than as a preparative for Sacramental Communion, the Confession rejects, but the _outward_ rite itself, on public sacramental occasions, it professes to retain: and this being the only charge made in the _Platform_ on this subject, we appeal to every candid reader to decide, whether it has not been fully established.

Whether Melancthon and the princes had yielded more in this Confession than Luther approved, and whether any of the alterations confessedly made in the Confession after Luther had approved it, related to this Article, is quite a different question, and cannot affect the meaning of the Article itself. It is not improbable that such was the case; but even the ritual, which Luther prepared in 1523, contained the greater part of the Romish mass, such as the _Introitus_, the _Kyrie Eleison_, the _Collecta_, or prayer and _epistles, Singing of the Gradual_, a _Short Sequens_, the _Gospel_, the _Nicene Creed_, and a number of other matters, not excepting even the _elevation_ of the host, but not for adoration, which latter he retained till [sic] _till twelve years after the Diet at Augsburg!_ Yet, even at that time, he had rejected the greater part of the most objectionable portions of the mass. Hence, as the Platform charges the Confession only with favoring the _Ceremonies of the Mass_, the charge is not only sustained, but falls short, of what we have established in the preceding pages: and all the vituperation aimed at us by different individuals, who have studied the subject imperfectly, or not at all, we cheerfully forgive, conscious that the aim of all we have published on this subject has been the prosperity of the church, and assured that it will be blessed by the Master to this glorious end.

_Reference to the author's former works containing representations_ of this subject.

In view of these indisputable results of a careful investigation of the original sources, it may not be amiss to cast a glance at the representations of this subject in our former publications during the last quarter of a century, as we have frequently been charged, not indeed by the author of the Plea, but by superficial writers, with self-contradiction and misrepresentation. It would indeed have been in perfect unison with the habit of the best authors of Europe and America, to change our opinions as we extended our investigations, and freely to profess such change. Nor should we feel any reluctance in following such distinguished authorities, if we felt that our case required it. But in reperusing our former statements, we cannot see that they differ, in any material point, from the results of our latest investigations above given.

In the Popular Theology, (page 406 of the seventh edition,) first published in 1834, speaking of the article of the Augsburg Confession on the Mass, we find the following:--"On this subject, (the mass,) the language of the Confession was less condemnatory, than that which they soon after employed. In the Smalcald Articles, which were published seven years after this Confession, in 1537, Luther declares the Papal mass to be a most momentous and abominable corruption; because it militates directly and powerfully against the fundamental doctrine, (justification by faith in Jesus Christ.") We then add several extracts from the Augsburg Confession, showing that the confessors rejected the _sacrificial_ and _vicarious_ nature of the mass, as well as other objectionable features of it. Now here we find the same two positions taken, which the preceding discussions of this chapter have established, namely, that the Confession is less condemnatory than the later Smalcald Articles; that it favors the mass more, and speaks of it in milder language than was employed at a subsequent period. As no one of any note at that day pretended to urge the adoption of the entire Augsburg Confession, much less of all the symbolical books, there was no necessity of dilating on the objectionable features of the Confession, and we of course abstain from doing so. In this silence we would have persevered to this day, had not a new generation of European symbolists since then sought refuge on our shores, and carried on aggressive operations, incessantly assailing the General Synod and her members, and charging them with unfaithfulness to Confessions which they never adopted, except as to fundamentals; thus compelling us to expose these remnants of Romish error which they certainly do contain.

When, we turn to our _History of the American Lutheran Church_, published in 1852, we find on pages 240, 241, the following statement:-- "The mass, that is, _the name and some of the ceremonies_ of the Romish mass, were retained in the Augsburg Confession; although the errors in doctrine, by which the Romish mass grew out of the Scripture doctrine of the Lord's Supper, were rejected in that as well as subsequent symbols." "Our churches," (says the Augsburg Confession, Art. XXIV.) "are _unjustly_ charged with having rejected the mass, (messe.) For it is publicly known that the mass is celebrated amongst us with greater devotion and earnestness, than amongst our opponents." "Nor has there been any perceptible change made in the public ceremonies of the mass, except that at several places _German_ hymns are sung along with the _Latin_ ones." "Our custom is on holy days (and at other times also, _if there be communicants_) to _say mass_, (not to say a Lord's Supper,) and those who desire it, receive the Lord's Supper." Subsequently, however, great changes were made in the public ceremonies attendant on the Lord's Supper, and Luther in his Smalcald Articles rejects the mass entirely, both the name and accompanying ceremonies. And soon after the whole Lutheran church followed him. Still, if the Augsburg Confession were _strictly binding on us_, we should be under the necessity of adopting on sacramental occasions all the public ceremonies then and now usual in the Romish Church in celebrating public mass." Here again we see the following points, which were clearly proved above: 1. That the Augsburg Confession denies having rejected the mass. 2. That she does reject those doctrinal errors which gave rise to the Romish mass. 3. That it was their custom on public occasions (when persons were present who desired to commune) to say a mass, and then administer the sacrament to them. 4. That the Confession explicitly asserts that "_no perceptible change_" had been made in the public ceremonies of the mass, except the introduction of German hymns along with the Latin ones in several places. Hence the inference would necessarily follow, that if they had made no perceptible change in the public ceremonies of the mass, we could make none, if the Confession was _strictly binding_ on us: and as the ceremonies of the Romish mass are the same now as then, the ceremonies which the Confession prescribes are the same as those now observed in the church, and if we obeyed the Confession, we should have to perform the same without any "_perceptible_" difference, except the addition of German hymns along with the Latin, which were at that time used in the Lutheran Church. These, Luther for sometime himself defended, as it is certain he did the elevation of the host, (but not for adoration,) till 1542, more than _twenty years_ after he commenced the Reformation. Those who object to these statements confound the teachings of the Confession with the _subsequent practice of Luther and the churches_; yea, it has appeared to us, in the course of our recent examinations on these subjects, that the Augsburg Confession was not even up to the progress of reform attained by churches at that day, and this may be one reason why Luther told Melancthon he had yielded too much to the Papists in the Confession. In our Lutheran Manual, we have simply presented the article of the Confession in full, in juxtaposition with the Smalcald Article, treating of the same subject; and have done so without note or comment, except the remark, that the latter refutes the tolerant views of the mass expressed in the former. We can, therefore, see no inconsistency between what we have published on this subject at distant intervals, certainly much less than might have occurred to the most careful and conscientious writer, on a subject so closely connected with the fluctuations of language. Doubtless, by taking detached portions of a paragraph apart from the limitations connected with them, and falsely imputing sinister motives to almost every sentence, it in possible to make the most correct author contradict himself and misrepresent his subject; but with such men, whether their misrepresentations arise from deliberate design or inveterate general habit, we cannot consent to debate. The injury done is rather to the cause of Christ and of truth than ourselves, and we can well afford to commit the case for adjudication to that Omniscient Being, "who judgeth righteously."

Note 1. See Luther's Works, Leipsic ed., Vol. xxi, pp. 447, 448.

Note 2. See Luther's letter to Prince George in his Works, Vol. xxi., p. 430.

Note 3. Vol. iii., p. 114.

Note 4. See Murdock, Edition of Moshiem's History, Vol. iii, page 53, Harper's edition.

Note 5. Fuhrmann's Lexicon, Vol. iii., p. 3.

Note 6. Siegel's Manual, Vol. iii., p. 362.

Note 7. Ibid, p. 366.

Note 8. Ibid, p. 375.

Note 9. Luther's Works, Vol. xxii., p. 233-37.

Note 10. Ibid, p. 237.

Note 11. Ibid, p. 240.

Note 12. Ibid. p. 338.

Note 13. Luther's Works, Vol. xix., p. 666.

Note 14. Ibid., Vol. xx., p. 3.

Note 15. Luther's Works, Vol. xx., p. 195.

Note 16. Ibid., p. 257.

Note 17. Luther's Works, Vol. xxi., p. 63.

Note 18. The edition from which all our translations of Melancthon's Letters are made is that of Niemeyer, published at Halle, in 1830, entitled Philip Melancthon in Jahre der Augsburgischen Confession.

Note 19. Niemeyer's Melancthon, pp. 41-43.

Note 20. Ibid., p. 56.

Note 21. Niemeyer's Melancthon, p. 71.

Note 22. Niemeyer's Melancthon, p. 76.

Note 23. Niemeyer, p. 90, 91.

Note 24. Koethe's Melancthon's Works, Vol. I., p. 263.

Note 25. Ibid., p. 265.

Note 26. Ibid., p. 267.

Note 27. Luther's Works, Vol. XX., p. 199.

Note 28. Pfeiffer's Augapfel, second edit., p. 1045.

Note 29. Ibid. p. 1048.

Note 30. Pfeiffer's Aug. Appel., second edit., p. 1050.

Note 31. See the Lutheran Manual, p. 288, and Muller's Symb. Bucher, p. 51.

Note 32. See Lutheran Manual, p. 289.

Note 33. Plea, &c., p. 15.

Note 34. Lutheran Manual, pp. 288, 289, and Muller's Symb. pp. 51, 52, 53.

Note 35. Pfeiffer's Augapfel, 2d ed., p. 1045.

Note 36. Mueller's Symb. Books, pp. 248, 249.

Note 37. Koethe's Melancthon's Werke, Vol. i., p. 250.

Note 38. Luther's Works, Leipsic ed., Vol. xxii., p. 338.