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.