With this occasional disclaimer of these errors, American Lutherans have hitherto been satisfied, nor would the question of officially adopting a new creed have been raised at this time, had not the Ultra-Lutherans of our land, of late become animated by a new zeal to disseminate their symbolic errors, and to denounce as not Lutherans, all who do not receive them. When the adoption of a new creed was thus forced upon them, a number of the brethren advocated the formation of one entirely new; but others believing it best to retain the venerable mother symbol of Protestantism, as far as we could regard her teachings as Scriptural, proposed the omission of the few disputed points, and the adoption of the residue unaltered, thus retaining nearly the whole of the doctrinal articles. The suggestion was adopted, as being more respectful to the venerable symbol of our church, we were urged to prepare the work for the consideration of some of the Western Synods; and thus the American Recension of the Augsburg Confession originated from respect for that creed, rather than the want of it. The talk about sacrilege, &c., would sound more natural among Romanists than Protestants; and the idea of deception is utterly unfounded, because the very name adopted, "American Recension," is a constant notification to the reader of some change. Neither one or the other charge was ever made against the Methodist Episcopal Church, for making four times as many changes in the Thirty-nine Articles. As to respect for the Confession, we see but little difference between several methods proposed amongst American Lutherans; to adopt the Confession as to the fundamentals of Scripture doctrine, leaving all free to reject the non-fundamentals; or to publish the symbol, with a list appended of some of its articles, which may be rejected; or to omit those same articles, leaving them free, and adopting all the residue unconditionally. On neither of these three plans does thematterof the Confession remain intact, even if the letter does; for inall, certain parts of it divested of binding authority, and left to the judgment of each individual. The American Recension is nothing more than a revised edition of the Confession, in which those parts are omitted that had already been divested of binding authority, and thus been superseded by subsequent ecclesiastical legislation.
And is it not creditable to any church, when she finds some tenets of her creed in conflict with the Scriptures, and calculated to circulate error, to reform and improve it? We should suppose that every enlightened and reflecting theologian, and still more every intelligent layman, would concur in the sentiments of that devoted friend and defender of the Lutheran Church,Dr. Koecher, of Jena, in 1759, who, discussing the charge that our church had changed her doctrines, says, "It avails nothing merely to charge a church with having made changes in her Creed; we must direct our attention to the subject or doctrine itself, and inquire whether it is true or false. Because,not every alteration in matters of faith is inadmissible and censurable. Suppose a church to perceive that a doctrinal error has crept into her creed, and to correct it by the exclusion of the error; does she not merit our approbation, much rather that our censure or abuse? Suppose that the Lutherans did formerly believe in transubstantiation (as has been charged,) but in the course of time rejected this doctrine, because they found it militate against divine truth; suppose the earlier Lutheran divines did approve of the doctrine of unconditional election, and limited grace of God, whilst our later theologians had renounced them, because they are in conflict with the teachings of God's word:—we say, suppose this had been the case, though it was not; their procedure would not be improper, and their doctrinal change would merit our approbation and praise, rather than censure." How much more christian and manly are these views, than the position which, though not avowed, is acted on by many, that the members of a church should never attempt to improve her symbols; but, as a matter of course, defend any doctrine taught by them, because it is there inculcated. What is this else than practically to elevate Luther, Melancthon, Zwingli, Calvin, or Wesley, above Christ? What is it else, than prefering [sic] to be Lutherans rather than Christians, if we are not ever ready to renounce anything Lutheran, if found not to be Christian? How can the church of Christ continue to develope [sic] herself in accordance with the divine purposes and plan, unless every part of the church is kept in constant contact with the Bible, and is ever willing to improve and conform its entire framework to the increased light of God's word and Providence? It was Luther's deep sense of obligation to the Bible, as paramount to all human authority, which enabled him and his Spartan band of coadjutors, under God, to reform the church of Germany from so many Romish errors, and nothing short of the same noble principle can conduct the church safely in her high and holy mission of converting the world. Whilst, therefore, we love Luther much, let us, my brethren, ever love Christ more. And whilst we respect the soul-stirring productions of the illustrious reformers, let that respect never induce us to sanction any errors contained in them, or bias our minds against the free and full reception of the revelations of God's holy Word!
Note 1. Colton's Genius of the Protestant Episcopal Church in theUnited States, &c., p. 151.
Note 2. Vol. ii., p. 498.
Note 3. Luther was a faithful papist until he was upwards ofthirty yearsdid, when he began to protest against the errors of Rome.
In forming an idea of the estimate which should be placed on the Augsburg Confession, as an expression of the results attained by the biblical studies of Luther, Melancthon and their associates, at the date of the diet in 1530; much depends on the question, whether the circumstances under which it was prepared, and the design for which it was intended, were favorable to a free and full exhibition of their views. The affirmative of this question has often been declared in this country; but the contrary is incontestably established by authentic history, as well as by the declarations of the Reformers themselves. The diet, it will be remembered, was appointed by the Emperor of Germany, Charles V., for the purpose of settling the controversies between the Pope and the Protestant princes of his empire, as well as for other political purposes. The place selected was the City ofAugsburg, in Bavaria, about two hundred English miles from Wittenberg, and about ninety miles from Coburg, where Luther was left by the Elector during the diet. [Note 1] The Pope had long been urging the emperor to adopt violent measures for the suppression of the Protestants. He fondly anticipated that a deathblow would now be given to the Protestant cause, and with which party the emperor would side was not fully known, although, being a Romanist, little favor could be expected by the Confessors. The Confession was composed by Melancthon out of the Torgau Articles, at Augsburg, where he and the Elector John, with his retinue, arrived on the 2d of May. On the 10th of May, it was sent to Luther, at Coburg, for his revision, and he returned it with his approbation on the 16th, remarking, "I have read Philip's Apology (the Confession,) and am very well (fastwohl, an obsolete meaning of the term "fast,") pleased with it. I know nothing to improve or alter at it; nor would it be suitable, as I cannot tread so softly and lightly." [Note 2] As the emperor did not arrive until about a month later, Melancthon continued to make various alterations, to render the Confession more acceptable to the Romanists; for the fears of the Protestants were greatly excited, as will appear by the following extracts from Melancthon's own letters, penned at this eventful period.
In a letter toLuther, dated Augsburg, June 15th, Melancthon says, "On the day before Corpus Christi festival, at 8 o'clock, P. M., the emperor arrived at Augsburg. From the imperial court, it appears, we have nothing to expect; for the sole object whichCampegiusseeks to accomplish, is that we should be suppressedby force. Nor is there any one in the emperor's entire court, who is milder than he himself." [Note 3] This was indeed a gloomy prospect, for they were entirely at the mercy of their emperor. He could reenact the scenes of the previous century, and send them, like Huss and Jerome, to the dungeon and the stake.
On the 26th of June, the day after the public presentation of the Confession, he again addressesLuther:"We live here in themost lamentable anxiety and incessant tears. To this a new source of consternation has been added today, after we had read the letter ofVitus(Dietrich, Luther's friend,) in which he states that you are so much offended at us, that you are unwilling even to read our letters. My father, I will not increase my sufferings by words, but I merely beg you to consider, where andin what danger we are, where we can have nothing to tranquilize us except your consolations. Streams of sophists and monks collect here daily, to inflame the hatred of the emperor against us. But the friends, if we could formerly number them amongst our (party,) are no longer with us. Alone and despised, we are herecontending against endless dangers. Our Vindication (the Confession) has been presented to the emperor, and I herewith send it to you for perusal. (If it had not been altered after Luther had seen and approved it, it would have been superfluous to send him another copy.) In my judgment, it is strong enough; for you will here perceive the monks depicted sufficiently. Now, it appears to me, that before our enemies reply, we must determine,what we will yield to themin reference to the 'eucharist in both kinds,' what touching matrimony (celibacyof priests,) and what in regard to 'CLOSET MASSES.' In [sic] appears they are determined in no case to yield the last two." [Note 4]
In a letter toCamerarius, [Note 5] he thus describes his condition: "My spirit isfilled with lamentable anxiety, not for the sake of our cause, but on account of the indifference of our associates. Be not concerned about me, for I commit myself to God. Butsomething remarkable disturbs us, which I can only tell you personally." [Note 6]
ToLuther, he writers [sic] on the 27th of June, "I cannot describe how deeply I was distressed, on reading in the letter ofVitus, (or Dietrich, a favorite of Luther, who remained with him at Coburg, as his associate,) that you are irreconciliably [sic] offended, because I do not write with sufficient frequency." "The condition of our affairs here is still such, that we spend thegreater part of our time in tears. We have written very often, as we can prove." From this and other passages in Melancthon's letters, as well as from his complaints, that he could not induce [Note 7] theProtestant princesto send messengers regularly to Luther, Niemeyer regards it as evident, that Luther's displeasure arose in part from the fact, that the princes felt disposed, at this important juncture, to act without either his knowledge, counsel, or co-operation, probably under the impression, that, they could more easily effect a reconciliation, if the intrepid, firm and hated Luther were kept out of view.
But to proceed with Melancthon's letter. "Our Confession (he says,) has been presented to the emperor, and I have sent you a copy. I entreated you (in my former letter) to inform me, how far we mightyield to our opponents, if it is practicable. It is true, as you know, we have already consulted on these subjects; but they are always adjusted in a different manner on the field of battle (sie geben sich im Schlachtfeld allezeit anders,) from what they are when previously made the subjects of discussion. I presume the greatest conflict will occur in regard toprivate masses. But as yet I have no certain information." [Note 8]
In another letter to Luther, dated Aug. 6, he says: "The Landgrave proceeds with great moderation, and has openly told me, that in order to preserve peace,he would submit to still more severe conditions, provided they could be accepted without bringing reproach on the gospel."
During the pendency of these negotiations, Melancthon made repeated efforts by letter to conciliate influential individuals of the papal party. Among these is his letter to _Cardinal Campegius, the apostolic legate, of July 6th, which reflects no little light on the state of his mind. This intense anxiety to gain the imperial favor for the Protestant cause, could not fail strongly to tempt him to make the Confession as palatable as possible to the Romanists, by yielding nearly everything that he did not regard as essential. Hear the letter:
"Most Reverend Sir:—As many good men applaud the very great moderation exhibited by your Eminence, amid your honors and elevation, I am induced to cherish the hope, that your Eminence will receive my letter with favor. Verily it was a true saying which Plato uttered, that nothing more desirable, or better, or more divine, can happen to men, than when wisdom is associated with power in government. Hence, when the intelligence arrived, that your Eminence was sent to this Diet, as judge in the pending religious controversy, many good men congratulated Germany, that the investigation of these most important affairs was confided to a man, who transcended others not merely by his high (official) dignity, but also much more by his wisdom; for even heretofore the fame of your Eminence's wisdom him resounded through all Germany. Now, as I believed, that with this wisdom your Eminence would greatly abhor violent measures, I was thereby induced to write to your Eminence, that it might be made known to you, that we also long only for peace and concord, and reject no condition for the restoration of peace."
"We haveno doctrine different from that of the Romish Church, (wir haben keinen von der Roemischen Kirche verschiedenen Lehrsatz,) yea, we have restrained many who wished to disseminate pernicious doctrines, as may be proved by public testimonies. [Note 9]We are prepared to obey the Romish Church, if, with that mildness which she has always manifested toward all men, she will only overlook and yield, some little, (einiges Wenige,)which we could not now alter if we would." [Note 10] Let not your Eminence believe our enemies, who wickedly pervert our writings, and falsely impute to us anything which can inflame the general hatred against us. We reverentlypledge obedience [Note 11] to the authority of the Roman Pontif, [sic] and to the entire organization of the (Verfassung) of the [sic on repetition] church, only let not the Pope of Rome reject us. Many feel assured, that if your Eminence were better acquainted with our cause and views, you would not approve of these violent counsels. For no other reason do we incur greater hostility in Germany, than because we defend the doctrines of the Romish [Note 12] Church with the utmost steadfastness. This fidelity, if the Lord will, we will show to the Romish Churchuntil our last breath. There is indeed somesmalldifference in usages, which seems to be unfavorable to union. But the ecclesiastical laws themselves declare, that the unity of the church may continue even amid such diversity of customs." [Note 13]
Is it possible that any impartial man, after reading this letter can suppose the circumstances of this diet to have been favorable to a free and full expression of the points of dissent, between the Protestants and Papists, even at that day? During the entire six weeks that Melancthon was at Augsburg, before the arrival of the Emperor, his mind was in this agitated and alarmed condition. According to his own account he continued daily to make changes in the Confession,afterit had been submitted to Luther. No wonder, therefore, that Luther, responding to Melancthon's inquiry, "what more they could yield to the Romanists," makes this rather dissatisfied reply, under date June 29: "Your Apology(the Augsburg Confession, as altered by Melancthon. after Luther had sanctioned it on the 15th of May, and it had been presented to tho diet on the 25th of June,) _I have received, and wonder what you mean, when you desire to know, what and how much, may be yielded to the papists. As far as I am concerned, TOO MUCH HAS ALREADY BEEN YIELDED TO THEM IN THE APOLOGY (Confession)." [Note 14] Here it in evident that the various changes, made by Melancthon between the 15th of May and 25th of June, led Luther to affirm what American Lutherans now maintain, thathe had yielded too much to the papists in the Augsburg Confession. "I daily altered and recast the greater part of it, (says Melancthon himself,) and would [Note 15] have altered still more if our counsellors [sic] had allowed it." And so much greater was his dissatisfaction at the still more important concessions, [Note 16] which Melancthon and his associates were willing to make, in their negotiations after the Confession had been delivered, that, in a letter of Sept. 20, toJustus Jonas, one of the principal Protestant theologians at the Diet, he gives vent to his feelings in the following remarkable language: "I almost burst with anger and displeasure, (Ich boerste schier fuer Zorn und Widerwillen,) and I beg you only to cut short the matter, cease to negotiate with them (the Papists,) any longer, and come home. They have the Confession. They have the gospel. If they are willing to yield to it, then it is well. If they are unwilling, they may go. If war comes out of it, let it come. We have entreated and done enough. The Lord has prepared them as victims for the slaughter, that he may reward them according to their works. But us, his people, he will deliver, even if we were sitting in the fiery furnace at Babylon." [Note 17] Thus have we heard abundant evidence from the lips of Melancthon and Luther themselves, that the circumstances under which the Augsburg Confession was composed, in eight days, before its submission for Luther's sanction, and the increasing pressure under which Melancthon afterwards made numerous changes in it, during five weeks before its presentation to the Diet, were far from being favorable to a full and free exhibition of the deliberate views of the Reformers even at that date, and fully account for some of the remnants of Romanism still found in that confession, whose import we are now to examine. The declaration of that elaborate historianArnold, is therefore only too true; "Melancthon had prepared the Confession amid great fear and trembling, and in many things accommodated himself to the Papists." (Nun hatte dieselbe Melancthon zuvor in grossen Zittern und Angsten aufgesetzet, und sich in vielen nach den Papisten bequemet." [Note 18]
Of similar import is the judgment of _Dr. Hazelius." [sic on quotation mark] [Note 19] In reference to the article of Baptism, says he, we have first to remind the reader of the sentiments expressed by the Confessors, in the preface to this (the Augsburg) Confession, declaring there, and in various passages of their other writings, thatit was their object, not only to couch the sentiments and doctrines they professed, in language the least offensive to their opponents, but also to GIVE WAY AS FAR AS CONSCIENCE WOULD PERMIT. This being premised, we shall endeavor to discover the meaning of the Reformers in regard to the article of baptism from some of those portions of their writings, where they had not cause to be so circumspect and careful of not giving offence to the Roman party, as they had in the delivery of the Augsburg Confession."
Nor is it at all surprising, that, as Luther's views of the evils of the mass were so much clearer even at this period, he should, after seven years more time for study, and in times of peace and security, express his abhorrence of this Romish error in such strong terms as we meet in the Smalcald Articles. Indeed, it was this undecided character of the Augsburg Confession on some points, which led the Elector, who, in other respects valued it highly, to have this new Confession prepared by Luther for the Council, which Pope Paul III. [sic] had convoked, to meet at Mantua, in 1537, for the purpose of settling these religious disputes. Because, says Koellner, "the Augsburg Confession had been prepared with the view to give theleast possible offence to the opponents. But now, the Evangelical party, being stronger, were not only able to avow the points of difference more openly; but they were also determined to do so; and for such negotiations a different form (from that of the Augsburg Confession) was of course requisite. Finally, the transactions at Augsburg, during the reciprocal efforts at reconciliation, and especially through the great mildness and yielding disposition of Melancthon, had in regard to many doctrines, obliterated the clear and real point of difference, so that in many of them theopponents affirmed, there was no longer any difference at all." Koellner's Symbolik, Vol. I., p. 441.
Note 1. The reason why he was left, was because the civil authorities of Augsburg excepted him in the safe passport, which they sent to the Elector, under date of April 30. See Koellner, Vol. I., p. 172.
Note 2. "Ich habe M. Philipsen's Apologie ueberlesen, die gefaellt mir fast wohl, und weisz nichts daran zu bessern, noch zu aendern, wuerde sich auch nicht schicken: denn ich so sanft und leise nicht treten kann."
Note 3. We mention here once for that all our extracts from Melancthon's Letters are translated fromC. Niemeyer'swork, entitledPhilip Melancthonim Jahre der Augsburgischen Confession, Halle, 1830.
Note 4. Niemeyer, pp. 26, 27.
Note 5. At that time Professor of Greek and Latin Literature in theGymnasium of Nurenberg.
Note 6. Niemeyer, p. 28.
Note 7. Niemeyer, p. 78. "Ich kann es bei Hofe nicht erlangen, dasz von heir [sic] ein bestimmter Bote an Luther geschickt wird."
Note 8. Page 30.
Note 9. Dogma nullum habemus diversum a Romana Ecclesia.
Note 10. Here Niemeyer also gives the Latin: "Parati sumus, obedire ecclesiae Romanae, modo ut illa pro sua dementia, qua semper ergo omnes homines usa est, pauca quaedam vel dissimulet, vel relaxet, quae jam ne quidem, si velimus, mutare queamus.
Note 11. Ad haec Romani Pontificis auctoritatem et universam politiam ecclesiasticam, reverenter colimus, modo non abjiciat nos Romanus Pontifex.
Note 12. Here, says Niemeyer, Melancthon probably means the Romish church as she ought to be, and not as she was.
Note 13. Page 32.
Note 14. Eure Apologia habe ich empfangen, und nimmt mich wunder was ihr meynet, dasz ihr begehrt zu wissen, was und wie viel man den paepstlichen soll nachgeben.Fuer meine person ist ihnen allzuviel nachgegeben in der Apologia (Confession). Luther's Werke, B. XX., p. 185, Leipsic Edit.
Note 15. See his letter to Camerarius, dated June 26, 1530. "Ich veraenderte und gosz das meiste taeglich um, und wuerde noch mehreres geaedert [sic] haben, wenn es unsere Raethe erlaubt hatten." Niemeyer, p. 28.
Note 16. Melancthon had agreed to the restoration of the power of the bishops, and evidently, as seen by his letter to Luther, of June 26, if Luther had not objected, he would have made some retractions on the celibacy of the clergy, the communion in both kinds and even the private and closet masses. The Protestants did admit that the saints pray for us in heaven, and that commemorative festivals might be kept to pray God to accept the intercession of these saints; but by no means that our prayers should be addressed to the saints themselves. Niemeyer, p. 87.
Note 17. Luther's Works, Vol. XX, p. 196.
Note 18. Gottfried Arnold's Unpartheische Kirchen und Ketzer Historien,Vol. I., p. 809, edit. 2d of 1740.
Note 19. Doctrine and Discipline of the Synod of South Carolina, pp. 18, 19, published in 1841.
The Preamble.
On the subject of the preamble, we will add a few authorities for one or two of its positions, which we have heard called in question. On page 3, we read:—
"Subsequently, Luther and his coadjutorsstill further changedtheir views on some subjects in that Confession, such as the mass." The truth of this position is demonstrated even by the extract from the Smalcald Articles, given on p. 22 of the Platform. In the Augsburg Confession, Melanchon [sic] says (and Luther approved of it): "It, isunjustlycharged against our churches, that they have abolished the mass. For it is notorious that themass is celebrated among uswith greater devotion and seriousness than by our opponents." But seven years later, in the Smalcald Articles, Luther employs this very different language, which was sanctioned by his coadjutors: "The mass in the Papal church, must be the greatest and most terrible abomination, since it is directly and strongly opposed to this chief article (of Justification through faith in Christ,)" &c. Here the contradiction in words is positive and unqualified. But we must recollect that the term mass here, as will be fully proved hereafter, does not signify the Papal mass in full. It is a well-known fact, and the Confession itself informs us, that the confessors had long before rejectedprivate and closet masses, and also had rejected the idea of the public mass being asacrifice, or offering of Christ, for the sins of the living or the dead. But that the word mass cannot be regarded as merely synonymous with Lord's Supper, or communion, in this passage, as it frequently is elsewhere, is clear from the context. For we are told that by proper and diligent instruction "in the design and proper mode of receiving the holy sacrament," "the people are attracted to thecommunion and to the mass," (zur communionundmess gezogen wird;) clearly proving that by mass they here meant something else than communion, namely, the public mass, divested of itssacrificialnature, and of its design to benefit any others than the communicants themselves; in short, regarding it, thus modified, as an admissiblepreparationfor the holy communion. This mass, which the Platform,with great moderation, styles merely "Ceremonies" of the mass," p. 21, they confessedly did subsequently also abandon, as they had done private and closet masses before.
Again, if we may believe Luther himself, they certainly did a afterward change their ground in regard to the jurisdiction of the Pope and bishops. Hear his own language in 1533, three years later: "Hitherto we have always, and especially at the diet of Augsburg, very humbly offered to the Pope and bishops, that we would not destroy their ecclesiastical right and power, but that we would gladly be consecrated and governed by them, andaid in maintaining their prerogatives and power, if they would not force upon us articles too unchristian. But we have been unable to obtain this; on the contrary, they wish to force us away from the truth, to adopt their lies and abominations, or wish us put to death. If now, (as they are such hardened Pharaohs,) their authority and consecration should fare as their indulgences did, whose fault will it be?" He then proceeds to denounce the power and consecration which he had admitted at the time of the Augsburg Diet, and declares the church's entire independence of Rome for ordination. [Note 1]
Again, the Preamble asserts, "That the entire Lutheran Church of Germany has rejected the symbolical booksas a whole, and also abandoned some of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, among others the far greater part of them, the doctrine of thebodilypresence of the Saviour in the eucharist."
The truth of these positions is well known to those acquainted with the churches in Germany generally. A few extracts from standard authorities may be pleasing to those not well informed on this subject. SaysKoellner, in 1837: "The theologians of more recent times have, as a body, departed from the rigid doctrinal system of the symbols, and let it be particularly noted, not only those who in the opposing parties are termed rationalists, but also those who, in antithesis to these, desire to be regarded aschampions for the doctrines of the church.Accordingly, not only those who have been sufficiently denounced as heterodox, have abandoned the doctrines of the symbols, but also the so-calledorthodox, such asDoederlein, Morus, Michaelis, the venerableReinhard, Knapp, Storr, Schott, Schwartz, Augusti, Marheinecke, as well asHahn, Oltshausen, Tholuk, andHengstenberg. In like manner has the publicpledge to the symbolsbeen greatly relaxed, and isnowhere unconditional; but in fidelity to the principles of Protestantism, and guarding it, the obligation is always expressed with theexplicit reservationof the supreme authority of the Scriptures, as is evident from an inspection of the pledges prescribed in the different Protestant countries." [Note 2] Again: "It may as well be confessed and openly avowed, for the good of the church, that,there are but few theologians who still believe and teach the doctrines of the symbols." [Note 3]
ProfessorSchultz, in his work on the Eucharist, [Note 4] in 1831, says: "If, in the most recent times, individuals have here and there arisen in the Lutheran Church itself, as defenders of Luther's views of the Lord's Supper, it must not be overlooked, that even they, sensibly feeling the difficulty of their undertaking, resort to all manner of subtle explanations and arbitrary additions, in order to explain away the objectionable aspects of this view."
Finally, listen to the testimony ofDr. Hagenbach, of Basel, one of the most distinguished orthodox divines of Europe: "How few Lutherans, in this rationalizing period, firmlyadhere to the doctrine of the bodily presenceof Christ in the eucharist: and how few Reformed adhered consistently to the doctrine of unconditional election. If, therefore, the one, party relinquished the one, and the other party the other point (or dividing doctrine,) then the union between them was of course effected in the most natural way possible." [Note 5]
We close our observations on this topic with the impressive counsels of the venerable Dr. Knapp: [Note 6] "Speculations concerning the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ, have not the least influence upon the nature and efficacy of the Lord's Supper. What the Christian chiefly needs to know is the object and uses of this rite, and to act accordingly. Vide §145. He must there therefore believe from the heart that Christ died for him; that now, in his exalted state, he is still active in providing for his welfare; and that hence it becomes him to approach the Lord's table with feelings of the deepest reverence and most grateful love to God and to Christ. Upon this everything depends, and this makes the ordinance truly edifying and comforting in its influence. These benefits may be derived from this ordinance by all Christians; and to all who have true faith, or who allow this ordinance to have its proper effect in awakening attention to the great truths which it exhibits, it is a powerful, divinely-appointed means of grace, whatever theory respecting it they may adopt—the Lutheran, the Reformed, or even the Roman Catholic transubstantiation, gross as this error is."
The American Recension of the Augsburg Confession.
The general principle, on which this Recension was constructed, is to present the doctrinal articles entire, without the change of a single word, merely omitting the several sentences generally regarded as erroneous, together with nearly the entire condemnatory clauses, andadding nothingin their stead. All that the Recension contains is therefore the unadulterated Augsburg Confession, slightly abridged. The following list will show, thatalmost the entire Confession is thus retained,a single article only being omitted, viz.: that on Private Confession and Absolution.
ART. I.Of God:retainedentire.
ART. II.Of Natural Depravity:entire, except the omission of the words, "by baptism and the Holy Spirit." The condemnatory clause is also given, except the name " Pelagians and others, &c."
ART. III.Of the Son of God and his Mediatorial Work:retainedentire.
ART. IV.Of Justification:retainedentire.
ART. V.Of the Ministerial Office:retainedentire.
ART. VI.Concerning New Obedience(or a Christian Life:)entire.
ART. VII.Of the Church: entire.
ART. VIII.What the Church is: entire, except the omission of the last two sentences.
ART. IX.Concerning Baptism:according to the German copy.entire.
ART. X.Of the Lord's Supper:omits the words "bodyandblood" and "truly," and the phrase "are dispensed_," &c.
ART. XI.Of Confession:omitted, as private confession and absolution" [sic on punctuation] are confessedly not taught in Scripture.
ART. XIIOf Repentance (after Backsliding:) entire, except the omission of "the church's grantingabsolutionto those manifesting repentance," and that faith is produced also "by means absolution."
ART. XIII.Of the Use of the Sacraments. entire.
ART. XIV.Of Church Orders, (or the Ministry.) entire.
ART. XV.Of Religious Ceremonies. entire.
ART. XVI.Of Political Affairs;(excepting the word "imperial.")entire.
ART. XVII.Of Christ's Return to Judgment. entire.
ART. XVIII.Of Free Will. entire.
ART. XIX.Of the Author of Sin. entire.
ART. XX.Of God's Works. entire.
ART. XXI.Of the Invocation of the Saints, (except a reference to the authority of the Romish church, the canons and the fathers.)entire.
Note 1. See Luther's Works, Vol. XXI., p. 34, Leipsic ed. See this subject ably discussed in several articles in the Evangelical Lutheran, of December, 1835, by Dr. S. Sprecher, President of Wittenberg College, Ohio.
Note 2. Koellner's Symbolik, Vol. I., p. 121.
Note 3. Idem. p. 148.
Note 4. P. 344.
Note 5. Hagenbach's Church History of the Eighteenth and NineteenthCenturies, Vol. II., p. 358; also Hahn's Lehrbuch, 1828, p. 578.
Note 6. See Knapp's Theology, translated by L. Woods, Jr., page 513,1(Glauben's Lehre, &c., 1827,) or German copy, Vol. II., p. 505.
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.
1. As towhat the Platform teacheson 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 theceremoniesof 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 theceremoniesof the mass, butnot the mass itself, as has been alleged.
b. In the same connexion it is stated, "These are theonlyerrors 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 eventsnot charged in the Platform, if it is in words even contained in the Confession.
c. Thecaptionin the list of errors on page 21 of the Platform, is not headed theMass, as is the article of the Confession to which it refers; but what the Confession calls mass, the Platform,with great moderation, stylesCeremoniesof 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 theCeremoniesof the Mass." Here againCeremoniesof 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 thetolerant views of the massabove 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 theceremonialof the mass, which constituted by far the greater part of the public mass, so called, although its nature had been changed by denying thesacrificialcharacter of the minister's act of self-communion, and its being performed for the benefit ofothers, 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, wasthe elevation of the host, of which Luther thus speaks, in hisShort Confession about the Sacramentagainst 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 rejectthe 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.,Ceremoniesof 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 beenpreviouslyrejected, and the Platform says theonlyerror in the Augsburg Confession on this subject is theceremoniesof 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 rejectedprivate 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 theimport of the word massin 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 theceremoniesof the mass, other writers of the first respectability, have expressed the charge in stronger language. ThusFuhrmann, 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,) saysFuhrmann, in his Lexicon of Religious and Ecclesiastical History, [Note 5] at first signified that worship of God, whichprecededthe 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 intomass. 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 oftransubstantiationwas 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 wordmass, 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 precededthe 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, whichprecededthe 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 shallfirstinquire 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. Andfirstlet us listen toLutherhimself. 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 theMass, and service of the minister; we will now proceed to treat of the manner in which the holysacramentshall 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 priestbeforethe communion which constitute theMass, and the distribution of the elements to the people, which he terms holysacrament. 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 massandcommunion." [Note 11]
2. In hisletter 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 areno 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 termedsacrament, and that service performed by the minister, which was sometimes succeeded by the sacrament or communion, and at others not, is calledmass.
3.The Counsel of Luther and Pomeranius, in 1528, to Duke George: "First, as you inquire concerningparishmasses, &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: "Theeucharistorsacramentof 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, themasses, that have hitherto been regarded as asacrificeorgood 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 isunjustlycharged 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 aletterof September 20, 1530, addressedto 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, theone 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." Thecanonwas 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 hisExhortation to the Sacramentof 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 thesacrament, although I have hitherto contended that themassis no sacrifice; then you shall answer thus: I makeneither the mass nor the sacramenta sacrifice, ("Ich machewederMessenochSacrament 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,) theymustcallcommunion. But that is calledMASSwhich 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 ofMelancthon himself, who wrote the Confession, to show that he also observed the distinction betweenmassandeucharist. 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 theEucharist(Abendmahl) he urge strongly. He wishes all bishops to be extirpated." Then after speaking of human traditions, he adds: "In the matter of themass, (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 theEucharist. His defence of theMasswas 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 thetwo kinds(in the eucharist). Here he exerted himself to the utmost to prove thatbothkinds 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 thesacrament, 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 themass, 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 toLuther:"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 thewhole sacramentto 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.Eckiussays he contends for this point, merely because the people cannot be retained in the discharge of duty, unlesswealso release their consciences in regard to thesacrament(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 ofmasses, 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 themass(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 thecanonof 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 toLuther:"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 thetwo kinds(in the eucharist), marriage andthemass." [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 nota work which, when applied to others, merits grace for themex opere operato;but according to the confession of the whole church, theLord's Supper isthe 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 shortextracts 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 concerningthe 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 HolySacrament of the true body and blood of Christin the Sacrament of the altar; and the XXIV Article, "of theMass, 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 professedrefutation of the Augsburg Confession, prepared by thepapistsduring the diet; from which it will be evident, not only that they make this distinction themselves, which no one denies, but thatthey 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 themassis celebrated, in order that theholy eucharistmay be offered in memory of the passion of Christ." [Note 28] "In those churches, (which apostatize in the latter times)no more masseswill be celebrated,no more sacramentdistributed, 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 allothermasses, 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 wordsmassandeucharist, orLord'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, inthe secondplace, 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 findtwo 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 theMass, actually discusses what is specifically termed the mass, namely, the ceremony and acts of the priest or ministerprecedingthe 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 inthemass, specifically so called, and that theLatinhymns 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 communionandthe 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 saymassfor 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 inthe fact that both the word mass and sacrament are used together, with the copulative conjunctionANDconnecting 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 thecommunionANDthe mass," [Note 31] (dadurch das volk zur communionundMess 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,andadministered 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 massANDadmit to communionsuch 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.Servaturapud nosuna communis missasingulis 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.