American Lutheranism Vindicated Part 5

1. Because we find _two different articles of the Confession, the one with ma.s.s (Messe) for its caption, and the other headed:_ OF THE HOLY SUPPER (vom Heiligen Abendmahl.) Now, if ma.s.s 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 t.i.tle, 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 ma.s.s in its specific sense, it follows that ma.s.s 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 _Ma.s.s_, actually discusses what is specifically termed the ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s, 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_ ma.s.s, specifically so called, and that the _Latin_ hymns were part of this ma.s.s, "Ma.s.ses are bought and sold at annual fairs, and the greater part of them (the ma.s.ses) 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 ma.s.s, that they pay the priest. These "money ma.s.ses and closet ma.s.ses," are condemned; whilst no objection is made to public ma.s.s, at which the sacrament is administered; on the contrary, it is stated, that by proper instruction, "the people are attracted to communion _and_ the ma.s.s." The question is referred to "whether a ma.s.s performed for a number of persons collectively, was as efficacious as a separate ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s. 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 _ma.s.s_ 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 ma.s.s in its specific sense. Since then almost the whole article treats of the ma.s.s proper, does not common sense, as well as the legitimate principles of interpretation, require us so to interpret the word ma.s.s in the caption and pa.s.sages 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 ma.s.s; but we deem it unnecessary.

2. That the word ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s (missa) by the German term messe (ma.s.s); 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 ma.s.s (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 ma.s.s 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 "_ma.s.s;_" because they all felt that the context and scope of the Article demanded it.

3. Another proof in Article XXIV. itself, that the word ma.s.s is used to designate that ceremonial, which preceded the distribution of the sacrament, is found in _the fact that both the word ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s_," [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 pa.s.sage near the close of the Article: "The ancient canons also show that one of the priests performed the ma.s.s, _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 pa.s.sage preceding this: "Our custom is, that on holy days, and also at other times, if communicants are present, _we hold ma.s.s_ 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 pa.s.sages in this very Article itself, in which the ma.s.s 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] ma.s.s 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] a.s.serts, is proved by the fact, that _if you subst.i.tute either of these words for it, many pa.s.sages 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, subst.i.tuting either Lord's Supper or eucharist in place of the word ma.s.s.

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

"An annual fair was made, at which _eucharists_ (ma.s.ses) 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_ (ma.s.ses,) have ceased in our churches:" but the eucharist certainly had not ceased.

"Hence also arose the controversy, whether a _eucharist_ (ma.s.s) 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 ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s is used in Article XXIV., distinctively for the ma.s.s, 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 _ma.s.ses_, the closet _ma.s.ses_, and the sacrificial and vicarious nature of the _ma.s.s_ in general whilst they applaud the retention of public ma.s.s by the Reformers, if they would only celebrate it according to canonical regulations. We will cite a single pa.s.sage, 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) 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) 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 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 ma.s.s 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 pa.s.sage is cited, Melancthon says: "In the first place, we must state, by way of introduction, that we _do not abolish the ma.s.s_. For on every Sunday and Festival, _ma.s.ses_, (Messen) (not Lord's Suppers) are held in our churches, at which the _sacrament_ is administered to those who desire it." Here evidently ma.s.s and the sacrament are two things.

"Our opponents make a great talk (geschwaetz) about the _Latin_ ma.s.s, that is about the Ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s without understanding it, is, ex opere operato, meritorious and saving?" The term _hearing_ evidently refers to the ma.s.s, which was read; but what sense would there be in the phrase _hearing_ the Lord's Supper?

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

To this decided declaration of Melancthon, we might add his a.s.sertions on other occasions. Let a single one suffice. In his letter to Margrave George, of Brandenburg, on the _private_ ma.s.s, he uses this language: "Finally, as your excellence wishes to know what we retain in our churches of the ceremonies of the ma.s.s, I would inform your excellence, that the ma.s.s 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 ma.s.ses; at which, as it is well known, no one communed but the priest himself, but retain the _public ma.s.s_ at communion seasons.

_Finally_, to make a.s.surance 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 ma.s.ses 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 ma.s.ses should be held on Sabbath and holy days, according as there may be many or few communicants." [Note 38]

Now, in this pa.s.sage, the word ma.s.s either means Lord's Supper in general or ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s 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 pa.s.sages, 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 ma.s.s was sometimes used by the Romanists for the sacramental celebration in general, including the ma.s.s proper.

Thirdly, we a.s.sumed 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 ma.s.s.

We then a.s.serted 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 ma.s.s proper was spoken of.

We proved from various letters and other doc.u.ments of _Luther_, written in the year of the Diet, that he makes the distinction and uses the term ma.s.s for the above described ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s to mean the specific ma.s.s, in their other writings at that time; the, only remaining question was, whether Melancthon so used it in the disputed pa.s.sages 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 Ma.s.s," he discusses what is specifically termed ma.s.s.

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

We have proved, that in this very Article XXIV., the ma.s.s 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 subst.i.tute the Lord's Supper instead of ma.s.s in this Article, many of the pa.s.sages 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 Ma.s.s proper, and censured it for rejecting private ma.s.ses, _whilst it approved of it_ for retaining public ma.s.ses.

_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 ma.s.s in the objected pa.s.sages of the Article XXIV., signifies the ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s" they meant that they retained the ma.s.s 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, ma.s.ses, and indeed all ma.s.ses, except on occasions when the sacrament was administered to the people.

What the Romanists considered as the essential doctrine of the ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s. Hence, as the Platform charges the Confession only with favoring the _Ceremonies of the Ma.s.s_, 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 a.s.sured 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 Ma.s.s, we find the following:--"On this subject, (the ma.s.s,) 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 ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s 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 sh.o.r.es, and carried on aggressive operations, incessantly a.s.sailing 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 ma.s.s, that is, _the name and some of the ceremonies_ of the Romish ma.s.s, were retained in the Augsburg Confession; although the errors in doctrine, by which the Romish ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s, (messe.) For it is publicly known that the ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s_, (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 ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s." Here again we see the following points, which were clearly proved above: 1. That the Augsburg Confession denies having rejected the ma.s.s. 2. That she does reject those doctrinal errors which gave rise to the Romish ma.s.s. 3. That it was their custom on public occasions (when persons were present who desired to commune) to say a ma.s.s, and then administer the sacrament to them. 4. That the Confession explicitly a.s.serts that "_no perceptible change_" had been made in the public ceremonies of the ma.s.s, 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 ma.s.s, we could make none, if the Confession was _strictly binding_ on us: and as the ceremonies of the Romish ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s 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.