Book: American Lutheranism Vindicated; or, Examination of the Lutheran Symbols, on Certain Disputed Topics

S >> Samuel Simon Schmucker >> American Lutheranism Vindicated; or, Examination of the Lutheran Symbols, on Certain Disputed Topics




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.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.