SYNODICAL DISCLAIMER,
_or List of Symbolic Errors rejected by the great body of the churches
belonging to the General Synod_.
Having now arrived at the second part of the Definite Synodical
Platform, namely, that part which is not to be subscribed to by the
members of Synod; but which is published as the view of the majority,
from which individuals are allowed to dissent; we shall pursue the
following order in regard to each topic:
1. We shall recapitulate, briefly, what the Platform does assert.
2. State the objections made to these positions by the plea of Rev.
Mr. Mann.
3. Examine these objections and vindicate what seems to be the truth.
And as the Rev. Mr. Mann confines himself to the alleged errors of the
Augsburg Confession, we shall, with little exception, do the same.
CEREMONIES OF THE MASS.
1. As to _what the Platform teaches_ on this topic, there ought to be
no difficulty; because,
_a_. On page 5 of the Platform, we find a definite list of the errors
contained in the Augsburg Confession, viz.:
1. The approval of the _ceremonies_ of the mass.
2. Private Confession and Absolution.
3. Denial of the Divine obligation of the Christian Sabbath.
4. Baptismal Regeneration.
5. The real presence of the body and blood of the Saviour in the
Eucharist.
Here it is evident that the charge is, that the Confession advocates
the _ceremonies_ of the mass, but _not the mass itself_, as has been
alleged.
_b_. In the same connexion it is stated, "These are the _only_ errors
contained in the Augsburg Confession." But if these are the only errors
charged, then it follows that the error of inculcating the mass itself,
or doctrine of the mass, is at all events _not charged in the
Platform_, if it is in words even contained in the Confession.
_c_. The _caption_ in the list of errors on page 21 of the Platform, is
not headed the _Mass_, as is the article of the Confession to which it
refers; but what the Confession calls mass, the Platform, _with great
moderation_, styles _Ceremonies_ of the mass.
_d_. In the list of errors, the profession of which should exclude from
membership in Synods accepting the Platform, we find p. 15, the
following: "Whilst we will not admit into our Synod any one who
believes in Exorcism, Private Confession and Absolution, or the
_Ceremonies_ of the Mass." Here again _Ceremonies_ of the mass are
stated, but if the Platform taught that the Mass itself is inculcated
in the Confession, believers in the Mass would, _a fortiori_, have also
been mentioned as excluded.
What then is the meaning of the sentence on page 22 of the Platform,
"In refutation of the _tolerant views of the mass_ above expressed,
&c?" Why, of course we should suppose it meant those views of the mass
which the Platform charges against the Confession, as taught in these
passages, namely, retaining and approving the _ceremonial_ of the mass,
which constituted by far the greater part of the public mass, so
called, although its nature had been changed by denying the
_sacrificial_ character of the minister's act of self-communion, and
its being performed for the benefit of _others_, either living or dead.
We think also, some objectionable parts of the ceremonial itself were
changed, although the Confession asserts that the addition of some
German hymns, along with the Latin, was the only alteration made. Among
those objectionable parts retained, was _the elevation of the host_,
of which Luther thus speaks, in his _Short Confession about the
Sacrament_ against the Fanatics,in 1544. [Note 1] "It, happened about
twenty or twenty-two years ago, when I began to condemn the mass
(messe,) and wrote severely against the papists, to show that it (the
mass) was not a sacrifice, nor a work of ours, but a gift and blessing
or testament of God, which we could not offer to God, but ought and
must receive from him. At that time I was disposed to reject _the
elevation of the host_, on account of the papists, who regard it, as a
sacrifice, &c. But as our doctrine was at that time new and exceedingly
offensive over the whole world, I had to proceed cautiously, and on
account of the weak, to yield many things, which I, at a later period,
would not do. I therefore suffered the elevation of the host, to
remain, especially as it admits of a favorable, explanation, as I
showed in my little work '_De Captivitate Babylonica, &c._'" The
elevation of the host was still practised in Saxony generally in 1542,
[Note 2] twelve years after the Confession was written, approving of
the ceremonies of the mass, of which this was one. This remnant of
popery was, however, universally rejected soon after this period,
certainly before 1545, and in Wittenberg, in 1542.
_Again_, what is the natural import of the phrase on page 21 of the
Platform: "Accordingly the Lutheran church, in Europe and America, has
unanimously repudiated alike the mass and its ceremonies." The passage
itself specifies no time, when either was rejected, and neither says
nor implies that both were rejected at the same time. The word
"accordingly" refers to what preceded. The whole reads thus: "Topic I.,
_Ceremonies_ of the mass. The error taught on this subject by the
Augsburg Confession and Apology to it (namely, the error on these
ceremonies of the mass) was rejected by the reformers themselves a few
years after the Confession was first published. Accordingly, the
Lutheran Church, both in Europe and America, has unanimously
repudiated alike the mass and its ceremonies." As the Augsburg
Confession expressly teaches that private and closet masses had been
_previously_ rejected, and the Platform says the _only_ error in the
Augsburg Confession on this subject is the _ceremonies_ of the public
mass, its sacrificial and vicarious nature having also been repudiated
long before, it follows, that the thing here spoken of as the mass and
its ceremonies is that remnant of this rite, which, as proved above,
had not yet been rejected before 1530, the essential doctrine even of
the public mass having been rejected long before. Hence, the import of
this passage is: that whilst the reformers had long before the Diet of
Augsburg rejected the doctrine of the mass, as a sacrifice or a
vicarious service for the benefit of others, and had wholly rejected
_private and closet masses;_ they retained the ceremonies or ritual of
the public mass, preceding communion: but even this latter also they
renounced soon after; and accordingly, the Lutheran church, every where
in Europe and America, imitating their example, has repudiated alike
the mass and its ceremonies, which with the above-mentioned various
qualifications, are taught in the passages cited from the Confession.
Had we been writing for those unacquainted with the Augsburg
Confession, the qualifications here referred to, might have been
specified.
2. Our _next inquiry is, What objection does the Plea make to the
representations of the Platform on this subject?
The whole charge of our respected friend against the Platform is, that
it misapprehends the _import of the word mass_ in the 24th Article, and
therefore misrepresents the Confession, in charging it with sanctioning
the ceremonies of the Romish mass. To support this charge he affirms,
that the word mass (or missa, mess,) was at the time of the Confession,
in 1530, _in general use for the eucharist;_ and that in later years
the term mass, in this sense, was entirely given up by the Reformers,
page 15 of Plea.
The charge is certainly a grave one, and if unfounded, a grievous
injustice is done to the venerable mother symbol of Protestantism.
Viewing it in this light, we were slow to admit its truth ourselves,
until a pretty extensive acquaintance with the writings of the
Reformers compelled us to yield our conviction. Still we would have
greatly preferred to remain silent on the subject and throw the mantle
of oblivion over this deformity of our symbolic mother; had not
ill-advised ultra-symbolists of late years carried on a crusade against
all Lutherans who will not adopt the entire symbolic system. The charge
in the Platform was advisedly made, after careful examination. Since
the charge has been denied, we have again extensively examined the
writings of the Reformers, and whilst it would afford us pleasure to
withdraw it, and acknowledge our error; our conviction has grown more
firm, and we shall be greatly surprised if the great majority of
impartial minds do not find the evidence of our position fully
satisfactory. At the same time, whilst we charge the Confession with
favoring merely the _ceremonies_ of the mass, other writers of the
first respectability, have expressed the charge in stronger language.
Thus _Fuhrmann_, in his Lexicon of Religious and Ecclesiastical History,
speaking of the Romish mass, says: "_That Luther for some time tolerated
it, and gave if a a German garb and afterwards abolished it, is
notorious_. [Note 3] And that impartial and highly respectable historian
of our own country, Dr. Murdock, whose extended and valuable additions
to the classic church history of Dr. Moshiem, abundantly prove his
acquaintance with the subject; in giving a synopsis of the contents of
the Augsburg Confession, thus epitomises the 24th Article: "_The
Protestants are falsely taxed with abolishing the mass_. They only
purified it; and discarded the idea of its being a work of merit, or
offering for the sins of the living and the dead, which militates
against the scriptural doctrine, that Christ's sacrifice is the only
sin offering." [note 4]
In order that we may give this question an impartial and conscientious
investigation, let us first inquire into the meaning of the word mass
among the Papists, apart from the present dispute. "_Mass_ (missa,
Mess,) says _Fuhrmann_, in his Lexicon of Religious and Ecclesiastical
History, [Note 5] at first signified that worship of God, which
_preceded_ the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Subsequently, and
especially in the fifth century, ministers termed the public celebration
of the eucharist, _mass_ (or missa, dismissed); because this service
took place after the catechumens were dismissed. This word 'missa' was
gradually corrupted into _mass_. But how did that mode of celebrating
this ordinance arise in the Romish Church, _which consisted in the
priest's giving the sacrament to himself alone, connected with solemn
turnings around, and moving about from place to place, and changes of
attitude, resembling in some degree a theatrical exhibition, which is
termed mass?_" He then proceeds to explain the history of the Romish
mass here defined.
_Siegel_, in his excellent Manual of Christian Ecclesiastical
Antiquities, published at Leipsic, in 1837, in four volumes, presents
an extended view of this subject, from which we will extract little
more than his definition of the mass. "The mass, in the Roman Catholic
sense of the term, belongs not to the centuries of Christian antiquity,
but to a later period." [Note 6] We take up the subject at the time
when the Catholic doctrine of _transubstantiation_ was fully developed,
(since the Lateran Council of 1215.) In conformity to this view of the
sacrament, (the doctrine of transubstantiation,) _the idea of the mass
was so developed, as to signify that solemn act of the priest,
decorated with many ceremonies, by which he offers the unbloody
sacrifice at the altar." [Note 7] The mass service is a commixture of
Scripture passages, long and short prayers, extracts from the gospels
and epistles (pericopen,) liturgic forms, which are divided into
several chief parts, designated by different names, Introitus,
Offertorium, Canon missae," &c. [Note 8] This whole service amounts to
some fifteen or twenty octavo pages, including the directions for
genuflections, crossings, tergiversations, &c., occupying about an hour
in the reading, the performance of which by the priest was termed
"reading mass," as the listening of the audience was called "hearing
mass."
In view of these authorities, we may take for granted, what we suppose
no one will deny, that in the Romish Church, not only of the present
day, but since several centuries before the Reformation, and,
therefore, in 1530, the most common and primary meaning of the word
_mass_, was not Lord's Supper; but that long ceremonial, including the
consecration of the elements, elevation of the host, and self-communion
of the priest, as an offering of the body of Christ a sacrifice for the
sins of the living and dead, _which preceded_ the distribution of the
sacrament to the people.
_Again_, it will be admitted, that whilst among Papists the above
specific meaning of the word mass was the most common one, that term
was also not unfrequently used by synecdoche, as a part of the whole,
to designate the sacramental celebration in general: just as we use the
word "_preaching_" which specifically signifies the delivery of a
sermon, for the whole services of public worship in the phrase, "will
you go to preaching to-day?"
_Finally_, it will be admitted, that the Reformers, having been
educated as Papists, were trained up to this twofold use of the word
mass, namely, specifically the extended services above described, which
_preceded_ the communion, and sometimes informally the eucharist,
communion or sacrament in general.
The question then seems definitely to be reduced to these two inquiries;
first, _Did the Reformers retain this distinction in the use of the word
mass at the time of the Diet at Augsburg; and, secondly, did they employ
the word in its specific sense in the disputed passages of that
Confession?
_First Inquiry_.
We shall _first_ inquire whether this distinction in the use of the word
mass was observed by the Reformers at and before the time of the
Augsburg Diet?
I. And _first_ let us listen to _Luther_ himself. In 1523, the great
Reformer, 1, in his "_Method of conducting Christian Mass_," addressed
to Rev. Nicolas Hausman, after having rejected such portions of the
Romish mass, as he thought wrong, he approved others, as explained by
himself, such as the, Introitus, the Kyrie eleison, the Collecta or
prayer epistles, the Singing of the Gradual, a short sequens, the
Gospel, the Nicene Creed, and a number of other matters, including the
elevation of the host, but not for worship, [Note 9] he proceeds to the
next part of the Treatise which is headed "How to _administer the most
holy sacrament to the people," [Note 10] and his first sentence is the
following: "Let this much suffice to be said of the _Mass_, and service
of the minister; we will now proceed to treat of the manner in which the
holy _sacrament_ shall be administered to the people, for whose benefit
especially the Supper of our Lord was instituted." Here we clearly see
the distinction between the performances of the priest _before_ the
communion which constitute the _Mass_, and the distribution of the
elements to the people, which he terms holy _sacrament_. Then, after
having discussed the subject of the communion, that it should be
received in both kinds, &c., he adds, "Let this suffice for the present
on the subject of the mass _and_ communion." [Note 11]
2. In his _letter to Lazarus Spengler_, in 1528, Luther observes this
same distinction. "In the first place," he remarks, "it is unreasonable
that any one should be forced to receive the sacrament or to abstain
from it." And he adds: "All masses, at which there are _no
communicants_" (that is, at which the sacrament is not administered,)
"should absolutely be omitted." [Note 12] Here the administration of
the supper to the laity is termed _sacrament_, and that service
performed by the minister, which was sometimes succeeded by the
sacrament or communion, and at others not, is called _mass_.
3. _The Counsel of Luther and Pomeranius_, in 1528, to Duke George:
"First, as you inquire concerning _parish_ masses, &c. Be it known to
you that no minister can with good conscience perform mass alone, when
there are no communicants. Therefore here there is no room for further
inquiry; either there must be communicants, or them should be no
mass." [Note 13]
4. Luther's "_Confession of the Christian Doctrines, in XVII.
Articles_," published in 1530. This is a very short Confession, each
article containing but three or four sentences, and the whole amounting
to only three or four 8vo. pages. In Article X. he says: "The
_eucharist_ or _sacrament_ of the altar also consists of two parts,
namely that the true body and blood of Christ should verily be present
in the bread and wine;" and in Article XVI. he says: "Above all other
abominations, the _masses_, that have hitherto been regarded as a
_sacrifice_ or _good work_, by which one designed to procure grace for
the other, are to be rejected." [Note 14] Here the distinction is not
only made between the mass and eucharist, but the doctrine of the mass
as a sacrifice of Christ offered by the priest for others, is also
denounced. It will also be recollected that this view of the mass as a
sacrifice, and as vicarious, is strongly denounced in the Augsburg
Confession, whilst the charge of having rejected the rite itself with
these and other modifications, is flatly denied, in these words: "It is
_unjustly_ charged against our churches, that they have abolished the
mass," (Art. XXIV., p. 21 of the Platform,) a thing never charged
against them in reference to the eucharist, for from the very beginning
of the Reformation, they charged the Papists with having mutilated it,
and claimed the restoration of the cup also to the laity.
5. In a _letter_ of September 20, 1530, addressed _to Justus Jonas_, one
of the theologians at the diet, Luther thus expresses himself: "For,
what else do our opponents, (the Papists,) presume to propose, than that
they shall not yield a hairsbreadth, but that we not only yield on the
subject of the canon, _the mass_, the _one kind_, (in the eucharist,)
celibacy, (of the clergy,) and jurisdiction (of the bishops); but shall
also admit that they have taught the truth, and acted properly in all
things, and were falsely accused by us." [Note 15] Here the mass is
again distinguished from the eucharist in one kind. He then adds: "If we
will get at it (yielding to the Papists,) let us yield only the canon,
and the closet masses; and either of these two is sufficient fully to
deny our doctrine and to confirm theirs." The _canon_ was that part of
the ritual of the mass which contained the forms of transubstantiation,
which were positively rejected by the reformers, the closet masses are
rejected in the Augsburg Confession; but Luther says nothing against the
public mass, qualified as it is in the Confession.
6. In his _Exhortation to the Sacrament_ of the body and blood of
Christ, published in 1530, he says: "If the Papists do, as usual,
quibble at my language, and boast that I myself here make a sacrifice
in the _sacrament_, although I have hitherto contended that the _mass_
is no sacrifice; then you shall answer thus: I make _neither the mass
nor the sacrament_ a sacrifice, ("Ich mache _weder_ Messe _noch_
Sacrament zum opfer,") but the remembrance of Christ," [Note 16] &c.
Here the two are distinguished as clearly as language can discriminate
between two separate objects, and even placed in antithesis to one
another: and let it be remembered, that all the examples are taken from
works published either before or in the very year in which the Augsburg
Confession was written. A few years later, in 1534, in a letter to a
friend, in which he inveighs strongly against the closet masses and the
perverted order or arrangements of the mass, (verkehrte ordnung der
Messe,) and against the Romish mass in general: "I wish, and would very
gladly see and hear, that the two words mass and sacrament were
considered by every one as being as far apart as light and darkness,
yea, as the devil and God. For they (the Papists) must themselves
confess, that mass dues not signify the reception of the sacrament as
Christ instituted it; but the reception of the sacrament they do, (and
no thanks to them,) they _must_ call _communion. But that is called_
MASS _which the priest alone performs at the altar, in which no common
christian or layman takes part_." All other christians do nothing more
than receive the sacrament, _and do not perform mass_. [Note 17]
Certainly it must be evident that Luther did not regard the word mass as
the ordinary term for eucharist, but had a clear idea of the
distinction, and of the importance of observing it.
II. Let us now adduce similar evidence from the writings of
_Melancthon himself_, who wrote the Confession, to show that he also
observed the distinction between _mass_ and _eucharist_. This evidence
will be the stronger as all his letters quoted, were written from
Augsburg itself, during the very time that he composed the Confession,
and whilst it was under consideration in the Diet. [Note 18]
1. In a letter to Luther, dated Augsburg, July 30, 1530, Melancthon
says: "Zwingle has sent hither a printed Confession. His views of the
_Eucharist_ (Abendmahl) he urge strongly. He wishes all bishops to be
extirpated." Then after speaking of human traditions, he adds: "In the
matter of the _mass_, (not eucharist, which he had just mentioned
before,) and in the first discussion (Aufsatz, composition) of the
doctrinal articles I think I was cautions enough, but on the topics
concerning unwritten traditions, I was never rightly satisfied with
myself." [Note 19]
2. In another letter to Luther, of August 6th, he says: "At last, on
Aug. 3d, we heard the (Romish) Refutation (of the Augsburg Confession),
and also the declaration of the emperor. His declaration was terrible
enough, but the Refutation was composed in such a puerile manner, that
we could not but heartily congratulate each other. There is not a
single composition of Faber, (the pensman of the Refutation,) however
silly it may be, that is not exceeded in silliness by this. On the
doctrine concern the two kinds, (in the Eucharist,) he adduced the
history of the sons of Eli, who desired bread to eat; and wished to
prove by it, that it becomes laymen to be satisfied with the mere bread
in the _Eucharist_. His defence of the _Mass_ was very frosty." [Note
20] Here we find the eucharist and the mass spoken of as separate
things, and the discussion of the one represented as silly, and that of
the other frosty.
3. In a letter to Luther, dated August 22d, he thus writes: "Yesterday
we closed the discussion, or rather the quarrel (Gezaenk) which has been
conducted before the umpires. The third point was the question of merit,
&c. Then he came to the _two kinds_ (in the eucharist). Here he exerted
himself to the utmost to prove that _both_ kinds are not commanded. He
maintained that it was a matter of indifference whether one or both
kinds are received, and and [sic] that if we would teach
this, he would cheerfully allow us both kinds. This I could not accede
to; nevertheless, I excused those who had hitherto erroneously received
but one kind; for they cried out, the whole church is condemned by us.
What think you of this? The command of Jesus refers to ministers and
laymen. Hence if it is our duty to receive the _sacrament_, we are also
obligated to retain the form of the entire sacrament. If you also are
of this opinion, then inform me of it distinctly. On the subject of the
_mass_, vows and marriage, there was no discussions, only some
conditions were proposed, which we, however, did not accept." [Note 21]
Here again, the distinction between the sacrament and the mass is
clearly made, and we are told that at the disputation before the
umpires, the former was debated and the latter not. Can anything be
plainer, than that a distinction is here made between eucharist and
mass?
4. Under date of August 28, Melancthon thus writes to _Luther:_ "They
(the Papists,) wish us to admit, that neither those who administer but
one kind, nor those who receive it, are guilty of sin. We have, indeed,
exonerated those from blame, who receive but one kind; but as to those
who administer but one,--there is the knot. The Synod of Basil conceded
the _whole sacrament_ to the Bohemians, on condition that they would
acknowledge that it may, with propriety, be taken and received in one
kind only. This confession they also wish to extort from us. _Eckius_
says he contends for this point, merely because the people cannot be
retained in the discharge of duty, unless _we_ also release their
consciences in regard to the _sacrament_ (that is, unless the reformers
would admit, that its reception in one kind was also allowable). We
therefore desire to know your judgment on the case. As to the
application of _masses_, they are willing to postpone this till the
meeting of the synod (or council); and thus they intimate, that they
will not oppress us with the reception of their ungodly views on the
_mass_ (Koethe's edition: mit der gottlosen Application der Messe, with
the ungodly application of the mass, _i.e._ to the living and dead).
And yet they desire us to receive the _canon_ of the mass, (_i.e._ the
most objectionable part of the ritual of the mass, relating to the
transubstantiation of the bread and wine, its application to others,
&c.,) but with a convenient and devout explanation." [Note 22] Here
again, the distinction between the mass and the sacrament is clearly
seen.
5. On Sept. 4th, he again writes to _Luther:_ "I know that this long
silence must be very annoying to you, especially at this time, when we
ought to consult one another most frequently; but believe me, nothing
is so much opposed to my wishes in the court, as this indifference in
dispatching more frequent messengers to you, and yet I am unable to
induce them to do it. We have not yet received from our opponents the
proposed conditions in reference to the _two kinds_ (in the eucharist),
marriage and _the_ mass." [Note 23] Here again, who does not see the
distinction?
6. In a document, which Melancthon prepared for a friend of the
chancellor of the bishop of Luettich, in which he states how far they
yielded, and also the points in which they could not agree, we find the
following: "_Of the two kinds_.--Here we excused those (the laity,) who
receive one kind alone (that is, merely the bread in the eucharist),
for as they do not distribute the sacraments, they have to receive the
sacrament as it is given to them." [Note 24] "_Of the mass_.--In regard
to the mass we have already given our reply: namely, that our party
retain the substantials (substantalia,) and principal parts of the
mass, so far as the consecration is concerned, &c." [Note 25] "_The
mass is not_ a work which, when applied to others, merits grace for
them _ex opere operato;_ but according to the confession of the whole
church, the _Lord's Supper is_ the sacrament, through which grace is
offered to him that receives it, which grace he also really receives,
but not by the more external act, but through faith, when he is certain
that, in it., grace and pardon of sins are offered." [Note 26]
III. We will add a few short _extracts from other reformers_, written
at the time of the Diet, to confirm our position that they also made a
distinction between the mass and the eucharist, and that by the former
they meant that performance of the priest alone at the altar, which
preceded the communion.
1. _Aurifaber_, who was a particular personal friend of Luther, and was
present at his death. In his account of the incidents of Luther and his
doctrines in the year 1530, speaking of the special committee which was
appointed on the 16th of August, consisting of seven members on each
side, he remarks: [Note 27] "These assembled and took into
consideration the Augsburg Confession of the Protestant States,
deliberating on one article after another, and the first day agreed
upon eleven articles. The second day they continued their negotiations
and agreed toll [sic] to twenty-one articles. But on the
articles concerning _the mass_, marriage of priests, _the Lord's
Supper_, monastic vows and the jurisdiction of the bishops, &c., they
could not agree and remained at variance." Here the mass and the Lord's
Supper are distinctly classed as different topics.
2. _Spalatin_, one of the theologians who attended the Elector to
Augsburg, in his narrative of what occurred during the diet, giving a
brief abstract of the contents of the Augsburg Confession, epitomises
the, Xth Article thus: Of the Holy _Sacrament of the true body and
blood of Christ_ in the Sacrament of the altar; and the XXIV Article,
"of the _Mass_, how it is celebrated amongst us, and the reason why
closet masses have been rejected by us." Here again, who does not see
that the two are represented as distinct?
IV. We shall close this cumulative mass of evidence for the
distinction between the terms mass and eucharist or Lord's supper, at
the time of the diet of Augsburg, by an extract from the professed
_refutation of the Augsburg Confession_, prepared by the _papists_
during the diet; from which it will be evident, not only that they make
this distinction themselves, which no one denies, but that _they
understood the Augsburg Condition as making it also_.
In their reply to Article XXIV. of the Confession, (or the III. of the
Abuses Corrected) they state: "For the _mass_ is celebrated, in order
that the _holy eucharist_ may be offered in memory of the passion of
Christ." [Note 28] "In those churches, (which apostatize in the latter
times) _no more masses_ will be celebrated, _no more sacrament_
distributed, no more altars, nor images of the saints, &c." [Note 29]
Finally, near the close of their pretended refutation of this Article
of the Augsburg Confession, (XXIV.) the papist Refutation says, "It is
therefore not rejected or regarded as wrong that the (Protestant)
Princes and cities (according to their Confession, Article XXIV.,)
celebrate one common (public) mass in their churches; if they only
performed it properly, according to the holy rule and canonical
regulations, as all Catholics perform it. But that they (the
Protestants, in their Confession) reject all _other_ masses, can
neither be tolerated nor suffered by the christian faith and Catholic
profession, (that is, cannot be allowed by us, who profess the Roman
Catholic faith.) [Note 30]
Here then, in view of all this mass of evidence, we appeal to every
candid and conscientious reader, whether it is not impossible, fairly,
to resist the conviction, that the Reformers did, at and before the
diet at Augsburg in 1530, ordinarily observe the distinction to which
they had been trained in the Romish church, between the words _mass_
and _eucharist_, or _Lord's supper_, so that in all cases where
precision was necessary, and especially where both were spoken of, each
was called by its appropriate name? We say "ordinarily," because we
freely admit that sometimes they did use the word mass in a more general
sense, as a part for the whole, to include both the eucharist and the
mass proper, just as we now use the term preaching for the whole of the
public service, in the inquiry, "Will you go to preaching to day?"
whilst in its proper meaning, preaching has reference only to the
sermon. Our chain of argument is therefore not complete until we add
another link, and prove that the Reformers employed the word mass in
its specific and proper signification, in the disputed passages of the
Augsburg Confession, as they did in the numerous passages above cited,
and as the Papists themselves understood them to do.
_Second Inquiry_.
Let us now, in _the second_ place, inquire, _Whether the Reformers
employed the word mass in its proper and specific meaning in the
disputed passages of the Augsburg Confession_.
The affirmative of this question is, we think, certain, from a variety
of evidences.
1. Because we find _two different articles of the Confession, the one
with mass (Messe) for its caption, and the other headed:_ OF THE HOLY
SUPPER (vom Heiligen Abendmahl.) Now, if mass here signified Holy
Supper, the probability is that one or the other term would have been
used in both places. The design of captions prefixed to a chapter or
article, is to indicate the general contents of such article; and a
diversity of caption or title, naturally raises the presumption that
different subjects are discussed. The most natural method of deciding
this question concerning the meaning of the caption, is to inquire what,
are the subjects discussed in each article. If the subjects discussed in
both articles are the same, then the captions are or ought to be
synonymous, and as the Lord's Supper never signifies mass in its
specific sense, it follows that mass would have to mean Lord's Supper.
But if different subjects are treated of in the two articles, then the
captions, if appropriate, must mean different things. Now, it will not
be denied, that whilst the Article X., headed Lord's Supper, discusses
matter specifically relating to the eucharist, (namely the real presence
of the body and blood of the Saviour in the Holy Supper;) the Article
XXIV., headed the _Mass_, actually discusses what is specifically termed
the mass, namely, the ceremony and acts of the priest or minister
_preceding_ the Lord's Supper. Thus, the article states, "No perceptible
change was made in the public ceremonies of the mass, except the
addition of German hymns along with the Latin; but it is well known that
there are no other "public ceremonies" connected with the Lord's Supper
in the Romish church, except those embraced in _the_ mass, specifically
so called, and that the _Latin_ hymns were part of this mass, "Masses
are bought and sold at annual fairs, and the greater part of them (the
masses) in all the churches, were sold for money;" but we have never
heard that Romanists had to pay for receiving the communion, it is only
for a certain performance of the priest, called mass, that they pay the
priest. These "money masses and closet masses," are condemned; whilst no
objection is made to public mass, at which the sacrament is
administered; on the contrary, it is stated, that by proper instruction,
"the people are attracted to communion _and_ the mass." The question is
referred to "whether a mass performed for a number of persons
collectively, was as efficacious as a separate mass for each
individual;" but who ever heard of christians receiving one Lord's
Supper collectively, for a number of other persons, or for an
individual? And if the thing is done by the priest, then it is what is
specifically called mass. So also, who ever heard of the Lord's Supper
being received "for the dead;" but it is very common for the priest to
say _mass_ for the dead. Thus, might we add additional sentences from
this Article XXIV., which applied to the Lord's Supper, make no sense,
but are appropriately and historically true of the mass in its specific
sense. Since then almost the whole article treats of the mass proper,
does not common sense, as well as the legitimate principles of
interpretation, require us so to interpret the word mass in the caption
and passages cited from this article? The same reason would apply to a
comparison of the caption of Article XXII., or I, of the Abuses
Corrected, namely, "Of Communion in both kinds," compared with the word
mass; but we deem it unnecessary.
2. That the word mass is here used in its appropriate sense, is evident,
_because Melancthon himself, in translating the Latin original into
German_, always renders the Latin term for mass (missa) by the German
term messe (mass); whereas if he had used the Latin term in its more
general sense in Article XXIV., he would at least sometimes have
translated it eucharist, or Lord's Supper. But so far as we have
examined, the word mass (messe) is always employed in this article,
where the German is a translation of the Latin. In one case at least we
have found the German and Latin Confessions pursue different trains of
thought; so that though mass is found in the one, nothing corresponding
is contained in the other. The same may be affirmed of all translations
into English that we have seen, whether made in this country or in
Great Britain. No translator, so far as our knowledge extends, has
ventured to render "missa" or " messe," by Lord's Supper or eucharist;
but by the appropriate term "_mass;_" because they all felt that the
context and scope of the Article demanded it.
3. Another proof in Article XXIV. itself, that the word mass is used to
designate that ceremonial, which preceded the distribution of the
sacrament, is found in _the fact that both the word mass and sacrament
are used together, with the copulative conjunction_ AND _connecting
them. a_. Thus, near the commencement of the article, we read: "Our
people are instructed repeatedly, and with the utmost diligence,
concerning the design and proper mode of receiving the holy sacrament;
namely, to comfort alarmed consciences; by which means the people are
attracted to the _communion_ AND _the mass_," [Note 31] (dadurch das
volk zur communion _und_ Mess gezogen wird.) The Latin copy here has a
different train of remarks.
_b_. Again, the following passage near the close of the Article: "The
ancient canons also show that one of the priests performed the mass,
_and_ administered the communion to the other priests and deacons."
[Note 32] (Auch zeigen die alten canones an, dasz einer das Amt
gehalten hat UND die andern Priester und Diakon communicirt.) _c_. Also
the passage preceding this: "Our custom is, that on holy days, and also
at other times, if communicants are present, _we hold mass_ AND _admit
to communion_ such as desire it." (So wird diese Weise bei uns gehalten,
dasz man an Feiertagen, auch sonst so communicanten da sind, mess haelt,
und etliche so das begehren, communiciert. _Servatur_ apud nos _una
communis missa_ singulis feriis, atque aliis etiam diebus, si qui
sacramento velint uti, _ubi porrigitur sacramentum his qui petunt_.)
Here, then, we find three passages in this very Article itself, in which
the mass is distinguished from the distribution of the supper, and the
two things are connected by "and," necessarily implying their diversity.
4. That the words [sic] mass is used in its appropriate specific sense
in this Article, and not as synonymous with Lord's Supper, or eucharist,
as the Plea for the Augsburg Confession [Note 33] asserts, is proved by
the fact, that _if you substitute either of these words for it, many
passages in the Article will not make sense_. We will present a few
specimens, which may be multiplied by any one who will take Article
XXIV. of the Confession and read it, substituting either Lord's Supper
or eucharist in place of the word mass.
"By which means the people are attracted to the communion and the
_eucharist_, (the mass;") which is equivalent to saying, they were
attracted to the eucharist and the eucharist.
"An annual fair was made, at which _eucharists_ (masses) were bought
and sold." This would be historically untrue.
"And the greater part of them (the _eucharists_) in all the churches,
were performed for money." To this the same remark applies.
"These money-_eucharists_ and closet _eucharists_ (masses,) have ceased
in our churches:" but the eucharist certainly had not ceased.
"Hence also arose the controversy, whether a _eucharist_ (mass)
performed for (not by) a number of persons collectively, was as
efficacious as a separate _eucharist_ for each individual." This
question applies only to the mass proper, and was never mooted about
the eucharist.
"The ancient canons also show, that one of the priests performed or
celebrated (halten, celebrare) _eucharist, and administered the
communion to the other priests and deacons." [Note 34] This specimen,
like the first, would be purely tautological.
5. That the word mass is used in Article XXIV., distinctively for the
mass, is evident from the fact that the _Romanists so understood_ it,
and in their answer to the Confession attempt to refute the Protestant
rejection not of the Lord's Supper, but of the private _masses_, the
closet _masses_, and the sacrificial and vicarious nature of the _mass_
in general whilst they applaud the retention of public mass by the
Reformers, if they would only celebrate it according to canonical
regulations. We will cite a single passage, out of many that might be
adduced:--
"It, is therefore not rejected, nor regarded as wrong, that the
(Protestant) princes and cities (according to Article XXIV. of their
Confession, on which they are commenting,) celebrate one common (or
public) mass in their churches; if they only performed it properly,
according to the holy rule and canonical regulations, as all Catholics
perform it. But that they (the Protestants) reject all _other_ masses,
can neither be tolerated nor suffered by the Christian faith and
Catholic profession;" (that is, cannot be allowed by us who profess the
Roman Catholic religion. [Note 35]) As this Romish Refutation is rarely
met with, we add the exact original: "_Wird demnach nicht verworfen
noch fuer unrecht erkannt, dasz die Fuersten und Staedt halten ein
gemeine Mess in der Kirchen, wann sie solche nur ordentlich und richtig
nach der heiligen Richtschnur und canonischen Regel hielten und
thaeten, we es alle Catholischen halten: Dieweil sie aber alle andere
Messen abschaffen, das kann der Christlich glaub und Catholische
Profession und Bekaentnisz weder dulden noch leiden_."
6. The same fact is confirmed still further by _the Apology to the
Augsburg Confession_, written by Melancthon, in reply to the Romish
Refutation, from which we have just presented an extract. From this it
is evident that the Papists had correctly understood the Augsburg
Confession as speaking of the mass properly so called; and that we have
therefore also not misunderstood or misrepresented it. Speaking of the
very part of the Refutation from which the above passage is cited,
Melancthon says: "In the first place, we must state, by way of
introduction, that we _do not abolish the mass_. For on every Sunday
and Festival, _masses_, (Messen) (not Lord's Suppers) are held in our
churches, at which the _sacrament_ is administered to those who desire
it." Here evidently mass and the sacrament are two things.
"Our opponents make a great talk (geschwaetz) about the _Latin_ mass,
that is about the Mass which, as is well known, was and is _read_ in
Latin; but certainly they did not talk about the Latin Lord's Supper.
"But where do we find the Pharisaic, doctrine written, that the
_hearing_ of the mass without understanding it, is, ex opere operato,
meritorious and saving?" The term _hearing_ evidently refers to the
mass, which was read; but what sense would there be in the phrase
_hearing_ the Lord's Supper?
"That we do not celebrate private masses, but only a _public mass_
(eine oeffentliche Messe,) when the people also commune, is not at all
contrary to the common (or general) Christian church." Here the
_private_ masses are distinguished from the _public_ mass, and the fact
affirmed, as clearly as language can convey the idea, that the
_Reformers did retain and practice_ PUBLIC _mass on sacramental
occasions_." [Note 36] We might easily adduce a number of other
passages from this book, but really it seems to be a work of
supererogation.
To this decided declaration of Melancthon, we might add his assertions
on other occasions. Let a single one suffice. In his letter to Margrave
George, of Brandenburg, on the _private_ mass, he uses this language:
"Finally, as your excellence wishes to know what we retain in our
churches of the ceremonies of the mass, I would inform your excellence,
that the mass is entirely abolished, _except when are persons present_
who wish to receive the Lord's Supper;" [Note 37] that is, we have
entirely abolished private masses; at which, as it is well known, no
one communed but the priest himself, but retain the _public mass_ at
communion seasons.
_Finally_, to make assurance doubly sure, we will add a similar
testimony from Luther himself, in a letter of Counsel to Lazarus
Spengler, in 1528: "In the _first place_, let all masses be absolutely
dispensed with at which there are no communicants present; as they
properly ought to be set aside. Secondly, that in the two parish
churches (namely, in Nuerenberg, where Spongier resided,) one or two
masses should be held on Sabbath and holy days, according as there may
be many or few communicants." [Note 38]
Now, in this passage, the word mass either means Lord's Supper in
general or mass in particular. It does not mean the former, because it
was something which Luther says had been performed _without any_
communicants being present, but should not be performed hereafter,
unless there were communicants. Again, he says, that on Sabbath or holy
days, when there are communicants present, this mass, which from its
nature _could_ be and had been performed without communicants, should
be performed once or twice. But what sense is there in terming that the
administration of the Lord's Supper at which there are no communicants.
Or in talking about administering one or two Lord's Suppers, as the
number of communicants might be large or small? For ourselves, it is
impossible to doubt, that the mass proper is here intended, which was
often celebrated by the minister alone, and which, at communion
seasons, was the usual preparation for the communion.
_And now, what is the result of our inquiry?_
We premised, as conceded by all, that as the word mass among the
Romanists does now, so it did at the time of the the [sic]
Reformation, and several centuries before, specifically signify a
certain service of about an hour's length, consisting of a commixture
of Scripture passages, long and short prayers, invocations, extracts
from the gospels and epistles, liturgic forms, the forms of
consecration of the elements and transubstantiation of them into the
Saviour's body and blood, with numerous crossings, genuflexions, the
elevation of the host and especially the self-communion of the priest,
as an offering of the body of Christ a bloodless sacrifice for the sins
of the living or dead; all of which was read and done by the _priest
himself_ before the altar; and which preceded the sacramental
communion of the congregation, and was the only preparation for the
communion.
We also admitted, that then, as now, the word mass was sometimes used
by the Romanists for the sacramental celebration in general, including
the mass proper.
Thirdly, we assumed as undenied, that the Reformers, having been born
and educated in the Romish religion till their majority, were
accustomed to this two-fold use of the term mass.
We then asserted that the Reformers continued the twofold use of the
term, and as its occasional use for the eucharist in general is not
disputed, we especially proved that they continued to observe the
distinction and to employ it in its _specific sense_, whenever the
mass proper was spoken of.
We proved from various letters and other documents of _Luther_, written
in the year of the Diet, that he makes the distinction and uses the
term mass for the above described mass proper.
We proved from various letters and other articles of _Melancthon_,
written during the session of the Diet, that he employed it in this
specific sense.
We proved that the other Reformers used the word in this specific
sense, such as Aurifaber, and Spalatin. And finally:
We proved that the _Romanists_ used it in this sense at the Diet, in
their pretended Refutation of the Augsburg Confession.
There being no possible doubt of the Reformers using the word mass to
mean the specific mass, in their other writings at that time; the, only
remaining question was, whether Melancthon so used it in the disputed
passages of the Article XXIV. of the Augsburg Confession.
That he did here employ it, in this specific sense, we proved by the
following facts: Because he made two different captions or headings for
two different articles, and in the one headed "Of the Lord's Supper,"
he discusses that subject, and in the other headed "The Mass," he
discusses what is specifically termed mass.
We proved, that Melancthon and all other translators from the Latin or
German copy, have translated these passages, messa, and _mass_, and not
Abendmahl, or Lord's Supper, or Eucharist.
We have proved, that in this very Article XXIV., the mass and sacrament
are spoken of in the same sentence as different things, being connected
together by the word "_and_."
We have proved, that if we substitute the Lord's Supper instead of mass
in this Article, many of the passages will make nonsense.
We have proved, that the Romanists themselves in their Refutation of
the Augsburg Confession, understood this Article XXIV. as speaking of
the Mass proper, and censured it for rejecting private masses, _whilst
it approved of it_ for retaining public masses.
_Finally_, we have proved, that Melancthon, in replying to this Romish
Refutation, does not charge them with having misunderstood the XXIV.
Article; but goes on to refute their arguments, implying that they had
understood him correctly.
In view of all these facts it is impossible for us to doubt, that the
word mass in the objected passages of the Article XXIV., signifies the
mass in its specific sense, and not the Lord's Supper in general: and
that when the Reformers affirm in their Confession, that "they are
unjustly charged with having abolished the mass" they meant that they
retained the mass on sacramental occasions, with the limitations and
altered explanations of the nature and application of it, specified in
different parts of the Confession; whilst they freely admitted, that
they had rejected private and closet, masses, and indeed all masses,
except on occasions when the sacrament was administered to the people.
What the Romanists considered as the essential doctrine of the mass,
viz., its being a sacrifice of Christ, offered by the priest, and its
being offered by him for others than himself, either living or dead,
and its being performed at any other time, or for any other purpose
than as a preparative for Sacramental Communion, the Confession
rejects, but the _outward_ rite itself, on public sacramental occasions,
it professes to retain: and this being the only charge made in the
_Platform_ on this subject, we appeal to every candid reader to decide,
whether it has not been fully established.
Whether Melancthon and the princes had yielded more in this Confession
than Luther approved, and whether any of the alterations confessedly
made in the Confession after Luther had approved it, related to this
Article, is quite a different question, and cannot affect the meaning
of the Article itself. It is not improbable that such was the case;
but even the ritual, which Luther prepared in 1523, contained the
greater part of the Romish mass, such as the _Introitus_, the _Kyrie
Eleison_, the _Collecta_, or prayer and _epistles, Singing of the
Gradual_, a _Short Sequens_, the _Gospel_, the _Nicene Creed_, and a
number of other matters, not excepting even the _elevation_ of the host,
but not for adoration, which latter he retained till [sic]
_till twelve years after the Diet at Augsburg!_ Yet, even at that time,
he had rejected the greater part of the most objectionable portions of
the mass. Hence, as the Platform charges the Confession only with
favoring the _Ceremonies of the Mass_, the charge is not only sustained,
but falls short, of what we have established in the preceding pages: and
all the vituperation aimed at us by different individuals, who have
studied the subject imperfectly, or not at all, we cheerfully forgive,
conscious that the aim of all we have published on this subject has been
the prosperity of the church, and assured that it will be blessed by the
Master to this glorious end.
_Reference to the author's former works containing representations_ of
this subject.
In view of these indisputable results of a careful investigation of the
original sources, it may not be amiss to cast a glance at the
representations of this subject in our former publications during the
last quarter of a century, as we have frequently been charged, not
indeed by the author of the Plea, but by superficial writers, with
self-contradiction and misrepresentation. It would indeed have been in
perfect unison with the habit of the best authors of Europe and America,
to change our opinions as we extended our investigations, and freely to
profess such change. Nor should we feel any reluctance in following such
distinguished authorities, if we felt that our case required it. But in
reperusing our former statements, we cannot see that they differ, in any
material point, from the results of our latest investigations above
given.
In the Popular Theology, (page 406 of the seventh edition,) first
published in 1834, speaking of the article of the Augsburg Confession on
the Mass, we find the following:--"On this subject, (the mass,) the
language of the Confession was less condemnatory, than that which they
soon after employed. In the Smalcald Articles, which were published
seven years after this Confession, in 1537, Luther declares the Papal
mass to be a most momentous and abominable corruption; because it
militates directly and powerfully against the fundamental doctrine,
(justification by faith in Jesus Christ.") We then add several extracts
from the Augsburg Confession, showing that the confessors rejected the
_sacrificial_ and _vicarious_ nature of the mass, as well as other
objectionable features of it. Now here we find the same two positions
taken, which the preceding discussions of this chapter have established,
namely, that the Confession is less condemnatory than the later Smalcald
Articles; that it favors the mass more, and speaks of it in milder
language than was employed at a subsequent period. As no one of any note
at that day pretended to urge the adoption of the entire Augsburg
Confession, much less of all the symbolical books, there was no
necessity of dilating on the objectionable features of the Confession,
and we of course abstain from doing so. In this silence we would have
persevered to this day, had not a new generation of European symbolists
since then sought refuge on our shores, and carried on aggressive
operations, incessantly assailing the General Synod and her members, and
charging them with unfaithfulness to Confessions which they never
adopted, except as to fundamentals; thus compelling us to expose these
remnants of Romish error which they certainly do contain.
When, we turn to our _History of the American Lutheran Church_,
published in 1852, we find on pages 240, 241, the following statement:--
"The mass, that is, _the name and some of the ceremonies_ of the Romish
mass, were retained in the Augsburg Confession; although the errors in
doctrine, by which the Romish mass grew out of the Scripture doctrine
of the Lord's Supper, were rejected in that as well as subsequent
symbols." "Our churches," (says the Augsburg Confession, Art. XXIV.)
"are _unjustly_ charged with having rejected the mass, (messe.) For it
is publicly known that the mass is celebrated amongst us with greater
devotion and earnestness, than amongst our opponents." "Nor has there
been any perceptible change made in the public ceremonies of the mass,
except that at several places _German_ hymns are sung along with the
_Latin_ ones." "Our custom is on holy days (and at other times also, _if
there be communicants_) to _say mass_, (not to say a Lord's Supper,) and
those who desire it, receive the Lord's Supper." Subsequently, however,
great changes were made in the public ceremonies attendant on the Lord's
Supper, and Luther in his Smalcald Articles rejects the mass entirely,
both the name and accompanying ceremonies. And soon after the whole
Lutheran church followed him. Still, if the Augsburg Confession were
_strictly binding on us_, we should be under the necessity of adopting
on sacramental occasions all the public ceremonies then and now usual in
the Romish Church in celebrating public mass." Here again we see the
following points, which were clearly proved above: 1. That the Augsburg
Confession denies having rejected the mass. 2. That she does reject
those doctrinal errors which gave rise to the Romish mass. 3. That it
was their custom on public occasions (when persons were present who
desired to commune) to say a mass, and then administer the sacrament to
them. 4. That the Confession explicitly asserts that "_no perceptible
change_" had been made in the public ceremonies of the mass, except the
introduction of German hymns along with the Latin ones in several
places. Hence the inference would necessarily follow, that if they had
made no perceptible change in the public ceremonies of the mass, we
could make none, if the Confession was _strictly binding_ on us: and as
the ceremonies of the Romish mass are the same now as then, the
ceremonies which the Confession prescribes are the same as those now
observed in the church, and if we obeyed the Confession, we should have
to perform the same without any "_perceptible_" difference, except the
addition of German hymns along with the Latin, which were at that time
used in the Lutheran Church. These, Luther for sometime himself
defended, as it is certain he did the elevation of the host, (but not
for adoration,) till 1542, more than _twenty years_ after he commenced
the Reformation. Those who object to these statements confound the
teachings of the Confession with the _subsequent practice of Luther and
the churches_; yea, it has appeared to us, in the course of our recent
examinations on these subjects, that the Augsburg Confession was not
even up to the progress of reform attained by churches at that day, and
this may be one reason why Luther told Melancthon he had yielded too
much to the Papists in the Confession. In our Lutheran Manual, we have
simply presented the article of the Confession in full, in
juxtaposition with the Smalcald Article, treating of the same subject;
and have done so without note or comment, except the remark, that the
latter refutes the tolerant views of the mass expressed in the former.
We can, therefore, see no inconsistency between what we have published
on this subject at distant intervals, certainly much less than might
have occurred to the most careful and conscientious writer, on a
subject so closely connected with the fluctuations of language.
Doubtless, by taking detached portions of a paragraph apart from the
limitations connected with them, and falsely imputing sinister motives
to almost every sentence, it in possible to make the most correct author
contradict himself and misrepresent his subject; but with such men,
whether their misrepresentations arise from deliberate design or
inveterate general habit, we cannot consent to debate. The injury done
is rather to the cause of Christ and of truth than ourselves, and we can
well afford to commit the case for adjudication to that Omniscient
Being, "who judgeth righteously."
Note 1. See Luther's Works, Leipsic ed., Vol. xxi, pp. 447, 448.
Note 2. See Luther's letter to Prince George in his Works, Vol. xxi.,
p. 430.
Note 3. Vol. iii., p. 114.
Note 4. See Murdock, Edition of Moshiem's History, Vol. iii, page 53,
Harper's edition.
Note 5. Fuhrmann's Lexicon, Vol. iii., p. 3.
Note 6. Siegel's Manual, Vol. iii., p. 362.
Note 7. Ibid, p. 366.
Note 8. Ibid, p. 375.
Note 9. Luther's Works, Vol. xxii., p. 233-37.
Note 10. Ibid, p. 237.
Note 11. Ibid, p. 240.
Note 12. Ibid. p. 338.
Note 13. Luther's Works, Vol. xix., p. 666.
Note 14. Ibid., Vol. xx., p. 3.
Note 15. Luther's Works, Vol. xx., p. 195.
Note 16. Ibid., p. 257.
Note 17. Luther's Works, Vol. xxi., p. 63.
Note 18. The edition from which all our translations of Melancthon's
Letters are made is that of Niemeyer, published at Halle, in 1830,
entitled Philip Melancthon in Jahre der Augsburgischen Confession.
Note 19. Niemeyer's Melancthon, pp. 41-43.
Note 20. Ibid., p. 56.
Note 21. Niemeyer's Melancthon, p. 71.
Note 22. Niemeyer's Melancthon, p. 76.
Note 23. Niemeyer, p. 90, 91.
Note 24. Koethe's Melancthon's Works, Vol. I., p. 263.
Note 25. Ibid., p. 265.
Note 26. Ibid., p. 267.
Note 27. Luther's Works, Vol. XX., p. 199.
Note 28. Pfeiffer's Augapfel, second edit., p. 1045.
Note 29. Ibid. p. 1048.
Note 30. Pfeiffer's Aug. Appel., second edit., p. 1050.
Note 31. See the Lutheran Manual, p. 288, and Muller's Symb. Bucher,
p. 51.
Note 32. See Lutheran Manual, p. 289.
Note 33. Plea, &c., p. 15.
Note 34. Lutheran Manual, pp. 288, 289, and Muller's Symb. pp. 51, 52,
53.
Note 35. Pfeiffer's Augapfel, 2d ed., p. 1045.
Note 36. Mueller's Symb. Books, pp. 248, 249.
Note 37. Koethe's Melancthon's Werke, Vol. i., p. 250.
Note 38. Luther's Works, Leipsic ed., Vol. xxii., p. 338.