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 f