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