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.