[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.