American Lutheranism Vindicated Part 4

1. The approval of the _ceremonies_ of the ma.s.s.

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 ma.s.s, but _not the ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s itself, or doctrine of the ma.s.s, 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 _Ma.s.s_, as is the article of the Confession to which it refers; but what the Confession calls ma.s.s, the Platform, _with great moderation_, styles _Ceremonies_ of the ma.s.s.

_d_. In the list of errors, the profession of which should exclude from members.h.i.+p 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 Ma.s.s." Here again _Ceremonies_ of the ma.s.s are stated, but if the Platform taught that the Ma.s.s itself is inculcated in the Confession, believers in the Ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s_ above expressed, &c?" Why, of course we should suppose it meant those views of the ma.s.s which the Platform charges against the Confession, as taught in these pa.s.sages, namely, retaining and approving the _ceremonial_ of the ma.s.s, which const.i.tuted by far the greater part of the public ma.s.s, 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 a.s.serts 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 ma.s.s (messe,) and wrote severely against the papists, to show that it (the ma.s.s) was not a sacrifice, nor a work of ours, but a gift and blessing or testament of G.o.d, which we could not offer to G.o.d, 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 ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s and its ceremonies." The pa.s.sage 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 ma.s.s. The error taught on this subject by the Augsburg Confession and Apology to it (namely, the error on these ceremonies of the ma.s.s) 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 ma.s.s and its ceremonies." As the Augsburg Confession expressly teaches that private and closet ma.s.ses had been _previously_ rejected, and the Platform says the _only_ error in the Augsburg Confession on this subject is the _ceremonies_ of the public ma.s.s, its sacrificial and vicarious nature having also been repudiated long before, it follows, that the thing here spoken of as the ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s having been rejected long before. Hence, the import of this pa.s.sage is: that whilst the reformers had long before the Diet of Augsburg rejected the doctrine of the ma.s.s, as a sacrifice or a vicarious service for the benefit of others, and had wholly rejected _private and closet ma.s.ses;_ they retained the ceremonies or ritual of the public ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s and its ceremonies, which with the above-mentioned various qualifications, are taught in the pa.s.sages 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 ma.s.s_ in the 24th Article, and therefore misrepresents the Confession, in charging it with sanctioning the ceremonies of the Romish ma.s.s. To support this charge he affirms, that the word ma.s.s (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 ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s, 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 cla.s.sic church history of Dr. Mos.h.i.+em, 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 abolis.h.i.+ng the ma.s.s_. 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 ma.s.s among the Papists, apart from the present dispute. "_Ma.s.s_ (missa, Mess,) says _Fuhrmann_, in his Lexicon of Religious and Ecclesiastical History, [Note 5] at first signified that wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, which _preceded_ the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Subsequently, and especially in the fifth century, ministers termed the public celebration of the eucharist, _ma.s.s_ (or missa, dismissed); because this service took place after the catechumens were dismissed. This word 'missa' was gradually corrupted into _ma.s.s_. 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 att.i.tude, resembling in some degree a theatrical exhibition, which is termed ma.s.s?_" He then proceeds to explain the history of the Romish ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s. "The ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s was so developed, as to signify that solemn act of the priest, decorated with many ceremonies, by which he offers the unb.l.o.o.d.y sacrifice at the altar." [Note 7] The ma.s.s service is a commixture of Scripture pa.s.sages, 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 ma.s.s," as the listening of the audience was called "hearing ma.s.s."

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 _ma.s.s_, 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 ma.s.s 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s at the time of the Diet at Augsburg; and, secondly, did they employ the word in its specific sense in the disputed pa.s.sages of that Confession?

_First Inquiry_.

We shall _first_ inquire whether this distinction in the use of the word ma.s.s 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 Ma.s.s_," addressed to Rev. Nicolas Hausman, after having rejected such portions of the Romish ma.s.s, 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 wors.h.i.+p, [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 _Ma.s.s_, 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 inst.i.tuted." Here we clearly see the distinction between the performances of the priest _before_ the communion which const.i.tute the _Ma.s.s_, 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 ma.s.s _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 ma.s.ses, 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 _ma.s.s_.

3. _The Counsel of Luther and Pomeranius_, in 1528, to Duke George: "First, as you inquire concerning _parish_ ma.s.ses, &c. Be it known to you that no minister can with good conscience perform ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s." [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 _ma.s.ses_, 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 ma.s.s and eucharist, but the doctrine of the ma.s.s as a sacrifice of Christ offered by the priest for others, is also denounced. It will also be recollected that this view of the ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s," (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 ma.s.s_, 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 ma.s.s 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 ma.s.ses; 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 ma.s.s which contained the forms of transubstantiation, which were positively rejected by the reformers, the closet ma.s.ses are rejected in the Augsburg Confession; but Luther says nothing against the public ma.s.s, 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 _ma.s.s_ is no sacrifice; then you shall answer thus: I make _neither the ma.s.s 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 ant.i.thesis 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 ma.s.ses and the perverted order or arrangements of the ma.s.s, (verkehrte ordnung der Messe,) and against the Romish ma.s.s in general: "I wish, and would very gladly see and hear, that the two words ma.s.s and sacrament were considered by every one as being as far apart as light and darkness, yea, as the devil and G.o.d. For they (the Papists) must themselves confess, that ma.s.s dues not signify the reception of the sacrament as Christ inst.i.tuted it; but the reception of the sacrament they do, (and no thanks to them,) they _must_ call _communion. But that is called_ Ma.s.s _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 ma.s.s_. [Note 17]

Certainly it must be evident that Luther did not regard the word ma.s.s 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 _ma.s.s_ 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 _ma.s.s_, (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 _Ma.s.s_ was very frosty." [Note 20] Here we find the eucharist and the ma.s.s 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 _ma.s.s_, 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 ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s?

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 _ma.s.ses_, 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 unG.o.dly views on the _ma.s.s_ (Koethe's edition: mit der gottlosen Application der Messe, with the unG.o.dly application of the ma.s.s, _i.e._ to the living and dead).

And yet they desire us to receive the _canon_ of the ma.s.s, (_i.e._ the most objectionable part of the ritual of the ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s 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_ ma.s.s." [Note 23] Here again, who does not see the distinction?

6. In a doc.u.ment, 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 ma.s.s_.--In regard to the ma.s.s we have already given our reply: namely, that our party retain the substantials (substantalia,) and princ.i.p.al parts of the ma.s.s, so far as the consecration is concerned, &c." [Note 25] "_The ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s 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 a.s.sembled 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 ma.s.s_, 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 ma.s.s and the Lord's Supper are distinctly cla.s.sed 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 _Ma.s.s_, how it is celebrated amongst us, and the reason why closet ma.s.ses have been rejected by us." Here again, who does not see that the two are represented as distinct?

IV. We shall close this c.u.mulative ma.s.s of evidence for the distinction between the terms ma.s.s 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 _ma.s.s_ is celebrated, in order that the _holy eucharist_ may be offered in memory of the pa.s.sion of Christ." [Note 28] "In those churches, (which apostatize in the latter times) _no more ma.s.ses_ 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) ma.s.s 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_ ma.s.ses, 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 ma.s.s 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 _ma.s.s_ 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 ma.s.s in a more general sense, as a part for the whole, to include both the eucharist and the ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s in its specific and proper signification, in the disputed pa.s.sages of the Augsburg Confession, as they did in the numerous pa.s.sages 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 ma.s.s in its proper and specific meaning in the disputed pa.s.sages of the Augsburg Confession_.

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